Dead American

Last Post on this Site

2008-04-10T18:27:00.002-04:00

Hah! Some of you thought I was finally going to shut up ... well, not so fast. In my attempts to better give you people access to the ... we'll just say "phenomenon" for lack of a better word ... that is Britt Mooney. I needed a way to get people more info on the book coming soon and my music projects. So go to the following site to check the blog and eventually see whole bunches of other stuff.

www.brittmooney.com

Peace.

How I Read the Bible

2008-04-04T18:04:00.002-04:00

Sorry its been a couple days ... busy in the life!

I wanted to continue on the theme of reading the Bible, giving some testimony to how I currently read and in the past have read. This is personal ... not meant in any way to be formulaic. If something rings true or convicts you, take that up with God. "Follow me as I follow Christ" and all that.

I was raised in a very Bible-reading fellowship, and I began memorizing scripture at a young age. My parents found this very conservative Methodist church that had a private school with tons of homework and a supposed high standard for their students (I was getting in trouble at the public school ... my teacher said it was because I was "bored" ... thanks, by the way). While said Christian school had its issues, I learned a lot about the Bible.

So by the time I more fully dedicated my life to Christ when I was a teenager, getting baptized and the whole nine, I was fairly educated in at least the basic Bible stories and that kind of thing. I was also quite the reader, so that helped (actually, the first thing I read silently to myself was the Bible, during a meeting where I had to be quiet ... my mom asked me, what are you doing? There's no pictures ... I told her I was reading without talking)

For a long time, though, my reading of scripture was haphazard, very spontaneous and sporadic. I might go through a week of reading pretty consistently then months of nothing on my own, outside of public meetings. I wasn't committed to much personal study, but admittedly, I was also fairly uncommitted to change.

At first, as I felt more conviction to read, I read mostly the New Testament (fairly common). I read the NT completely through several times, even all in one week once. I would read the same letters more than once, fully engrossed in the sweeping message of the letter and the individual details within. This was awesome, but it left my knowledge of the OT very deficient.

So I did something that changed it all around. I bought the Bible on CD (this was about 2000, and I didn't have anything so cool as a mp3 player or anything). I started just listening to stuff while working out or running, and when I listened to Leviticus on the way to Savannah, God showed me some awesome stuff about a book I found tedious and boring to read. God was also convicting me about my selfishness in self-entertainment ... He is still dealing with me about that. Books like Ezekiel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and others hit home and God just blew my mind as new revelations poured from these treasures.

This was still spontaneous, but I was devouring more and more, but a statement by an older minister (I think it was Tozer ...) on a sermon struck me. He said he read the Bible three times through a year. I don't know if I had ever read it straight through.

As I said before, part of God's conviction in my life was my general consumption of entertainment related material. I could read eight or nine Robert Jordan Wheel of Time novels (they're like 600-1000 pages long each) and not the whole Bible in the same amount of time? I could sit for hours and read a "fun book" but just read the Bible for a few minutes at a time ... okay, sometimes longer than that ... I was reading scripture in bigger chunks by then. This also challenged my sorry prayer life, but that's off subject here.

I got the Bible on mp3 and put it on my ipod ... now I was cooking. I found a chronological plan online at www.backtothebible.org. Yeah, the people look a little TBN, but hey, it was a good plan and I didn't want to spend big noney on a chronological Bible. I was really drawn to a chronological understanding of the Bible -- as a historian, I'm bit on historical context -- the Bible is organized by type and length of book or letter. To read in current order can be confusing. I started reading.

Oh, man, the discipline was difficult. I'd get way ahead, then way behind. We moved back to Atlanta in the middle, and all my discipline was shot. God helpled me, and my stubbornness worked myself back to catching up and finishing a chronological reading of the Bible. My eyes were opened to so many things ... I felt like a kid in the candy store.

Last year, it was my goal to do a chronological reading twice, the whole Bible in six months. I had to read so much at the end of the first year to catch up, I figured I could do it. I finished twice with time to spare, before Elisha was born in December.

This is all over and above other personal Bible studies for blog articles or my books.

Some drawbacks to this discipline:

Chronologically has taught me mountains of truth, but I am actually starting to forget the current order ... Kinda frustrating to know what something says but take a little longer than usual to find it.

The disciple should never get in the way of what God wants you to do. One morning I was listening to what I had to get through that day and God was trying to deal with me about something different. No joke, I turned the volume up to focus more on the Bible while God was talking to me. Once God was kind enough to help me see the idiocy of this, I forgot "the plan" and let Him say what He so lovingly wanted to say and apologized profusely.

The only other drawback is that I feel I have to do a back story everytime I share a scripture ... especially when my lesson gets me blank stares ... I know, it may just be that I'm boring. It's rare because God's general use for speaking in the Body is to encourage or to challenge, so the grace is there to relate what is needed, but sometimes God enjoys a good, "huh?"

I think I'll do three again for another year, if Ican successfully do this one, and I'm still around ... I can see, on the horizon, another type of reading God might be calling me to.

I'll let you know later what that might be.

Peace.

Quick Funny

2008-04-02T21:43:00.002-04:00

Been a little sobering this week ... Thought it time to share a great video from the 70's of Bill Cosby talking about his attempt at becoming a drummer. This was shared with me a couple weekends ago by good friends Kenny and Nicole. It is almost allotted ten minutes long ... but so worth it.

Watch video here.

Peace.

Reading the Bible

2008-04-02T15:25:00.000-04:00

I've read the scripture often in my life. That doesn't necessarily make me more spiritual, but I do have some experience, and therefore, perhaps some wisdom to share.

First, let me say that the Bible is an invaluable tool for being a true, mature disciple of Jesus Christ. It is useful for teaching and rebuke.

Second, the Bible cannot take the place of the Holy Spirit. The Bible works directly in conjuction with the Spirit. The two will always agree. God will never lead you opposite of the clear teaching of the scripture. The Bible will confirm the leading of the Spirit and the Spirit will confirm the truth of the Bible. Always.

Third, we must not worship the Bible or our own interpretation of it. While we may need to dig a little to understand what is said, those treasures will never contradict what is plainly taught. Many have been led astray by strict interpretation and deep liberal theology.

The Bible is a wealth of information about God (again, it is not God and not ever meant to replace Him or the Holy Spirit), His character, what is important to Him, practical ways to express your worship to Him. Without its dilligent study, therefore, we will be left quite immature.

I've heard the question asked recently: Should we require Christians to read it more? The question is valid. However, I believe the inference inherent within the question stems from an ignorant perspective.

If reading the scripture more would benefit the Christian, why not require them to do it more? The problem with some lies in the word "require", of course. We don't want to be seen as legalistic or "works oriented."

So we change the word to "encourage" instead of "require" and we feel a whole lot better about it (which, ironically, could be another type of legalism altogether).

But we're still kinda missing the point. The problem with requiring or encouraging people to read the Bible is this: we will only be casting pearls before swine if they're not willing to do what it says. If it is only an intellectual endeavor or a way to support a doctrine we already believe (which is many times the case), then we are only giving fuel to deception. Satan can quote the Bible verbatim, but I'm told not to listen to a word he says.

Another example is Jesus' parable about the two men building houses, one on a rock foundation and the other on the sand. Both men heard Jesus' words. The difference? The man with his house on a rock DID THEM. The other heard but did not do. And he fell. "And great was that fall."

To some Jesus is salvation, to others He is a stumbling block ... the difference? Who wants true transformation and who wants religious formulas?

I'm okay with Christians who just have no motivation to read. Sometimes it is an innocence or ignorance born of lack of experience, i.e., God hasn't spoken to them through the written word before, no fruit when He might, not sure of the Voice, etc. Many times it is a lack of conviction because God knows their hearts: they are resistant to change. And God witholds more revelation, conviction, or motivation out of His mercy and the inevitability of their response anyway. All they know is, "I don't feel like it," which to them is reason enough (they might even say spiritual phrases like "it's not on my heart" or have a theological basis for their choice).

So where I've come to is this. If you're not willing to read the Bible and really change, whatever that might mean to GOD, don't read it. That's my encouragement. If you're reading out of obligation or duty or intellectual curiosity, put it down. If you want transformation, read it and do it. There are countless parables and lessons from Christ to support that statement. If not, you're just setting yourself up for a fall.

And if we require/encourage people to read the scripture without first counting the cost, then we're the ones setting them up for failure and we will reap what we sow.

Peace.

Random Thoughts

2008-04-02T15:16:00.000-04:00

I believe in the necessity of a personal relationship with Christ. But equally necessary is a collective, communal relationship with Christ. The response to the question was, "Love God with all your heart and our neighbor as yourself." This is ONE commandment, not two. Christianity in isolation is not Christianity at all. You are, at best, keeping half a commandmnet, but you are actually breaking the whole commandment by refusing to fulfill it, thereby refusing the intent and the heart of all His commands. This invalidates even your "personal" relationship with God.

I think the greatest lie the modern Church has told is that the narrow way can be fun and easy. That's not the narrow way at all ... that's the broad way.

I don't need to know it all when I know the everything.

Peace.

Sounding Off 4.01.2008 Capitol Punishment

2008-04-01T18:03:00.002-04:00

Obama made the following statement recently, if you haven't heard it already: " ... look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." (emphasis mine)

Hmnnn ... Now, to be fair, he was talking about contraception in general, including abstinence education. But this was not just a problem of words, it is what the Democratic party believes about babies, especially "unwanted" babies. There are so many problems with this statement, I don't know where to begin, but I'm really not surprised. Obama is running for the candidacy of a party that, without any exception I know, is dedicated to supporting all unborn deaths already legal and pushing for even more liberty in killing babies. For any liberal friends of mine reading this, can we dig up one elected Democrat who is actually pro-life? I'll give you a dollar ... no make it two, if you can find one, but you'll have to declare those two dollars as income and the government will take half, so therefore the two dollars (John Cusack movie running through my head ... "I want my two dollars!")

Also, North Korea is not happy with the more conservative party leadership in South Korea (the new leadership isn't making nice little, "let's just be unified" statements at the expense of all common sense ... the new elected leadership is expressing their concern about nuclear weapons activity going on a few miles from their capital). So what does North Korea respond with? First, they've been firing off random missles into disputed waters with South Korea (in other words, they disagree with things like pesky UN agreements) AND they threaten to incinerate all of South Korea as a pre-emptive strike, just for questioning North Korea's right to have nuclear weapons (like that convinces us they should have them).

Oh, and by the way, who gave North Korea that nuclear technology? Oh, look, that's Bill Clinton. Hmnnn ... I wonder when Michael Moore will do a documentary or Jon Stewart a comedy bit on failed Clinton/Democratic policy? I'll give the first person to send me that DVD or that YouTube those same two dollars (half of which is bound to be taxed). I think my money's pretty safe.

On to a quick discussion of capital punishment.

Basically, capital punishment is the death penalty, the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime.

To be honest, I don't have a problem with the death penalty. I think it is biblical, first of all. Death is the first punishment God gives out (after the Garden of Eden AND after the flood). It was actually the first commandment given with a specific punishment, pre-Mosaic Law. If you murder another human being, you will be killed, and the blood is on your own hands.

In fact, looking through Leviticus and the Mosaic Law in general, it is interesting how many times the punishment of death is meted out and then the phrase, "and their blood shall be upon their own hands," is given. In other words, the state (a theocracy in this case, but in principle any state with ruling authority) has the right to execute as punishment and they possess no spiritual or moral guilt because of that act.

Again, we don't have much in the New Testament to go on here because they weren't interested in establishing a worldly government. But it seems clear to me that the state, as it speaks of in Romans, is still ordained by God to wield the sword of punishment for those who do wrong. That isn't taken away with the availability of the New Covenant in the earth. And not to mention the times that God Himself kills people in the New Testament for serious sins (Ananias and Saphira for "lying to the Holy Spirit," and Herod (the king of Judah) for receiving the praise of a god).

And if God is basically redemptive, and I completely believe that He is, then these actions, while seemingly hateful, are actually loving and redemptive. And they were. To look at Ananias and Saphira, the scripture clearly indicates that the fear of the Lord, a sobering thing necessary even in the New Covenant, came upon the whole assembly in Jerusalem, some 5 to 15 thousand people, and the Bible clearly infers this as a good thing, that it spurred them on to righteousness.

God does not enjoy the death of man, he says that clearly in Ezekiel, and neither should we. Can this be abused? Yes, as I've said many times lately, any proper and prudent discipline can be abused, but that does not invalidate the discipline, only the vessel, or in this case the state, using that discipline and its ordination correctly or not.

Now, I have to also say that I don't have a problem with NOT having the death penalty. You can seriously punish people without it, it seems to me. The only problem with those fighting to abolish the death penalty is that there is a lot of propoganda going on ... they twist characters and personalities to deem them corrected or changed or they drum up one story out of thousands where a man or woman was wrongly executed, usually telling the story in a very Crucible type setting, making the figure somewhat Christ-like in its imagery.

The best argument for looking at the death penalty and all punishment in America, generally, is the racial inequality in the sentencings, whether jail or execution. It is probably the best and strongest case for racism still existing in America, and it is so unconscious that most white people dismiss it out of hand. But it is there and very concerning, at least to a former hippie like me.

As a Church, I don't have a problem with supporting either side. Some of my pacifist friends might find that weird, but like I said, capital punishment is very supportable as redemptive by the scripture, Old and New Testament. To the degree that we, as Christians, want to enjoy the punishment and talk about people "deserving" it, well, we can get into some shady water with that one ... I mean don't we all deserve hell? We have to be careful what the attitude of our hearts is. But bringing someone, under the ordination of the state and after the evidence surely convicts, into conflict with their own mortality is actually quite compassionate. It reveals the spiritual truth that the penalty for sin is spiritual death.

But I don't have a problem with those who wish to show a different type of compassion and attempt to "longsuffer" with those that have committed those heinous crimes. Not sure how practical or even realistic, spiritually, it is, but I can't fault them for trying to love in this way. I can't support or condone the lying and exaggeration that occurs in that movement sometimes, but I feel many have a pure heart, motivated by something that "hopes all things and believes all things". Maybe it's a little utopian and silly, but sometimes that's the safest way to go, too.

Peace.

Handing Them Over to Satan Part 4

2008-03-31T15:46:00.003-04:00

To sum up, this was a serious offense, 1 Corinthians chapter 6 and 15, and other scriptures are very telling in relation to the seriousness of sexual sin. We don't need to go over them all here. As the compassionate people they were called to be, this assembly was called upon to love this man enough to exclude him from fellowship since his sin had excluded him from fellowship with the kingdom.

But there is a happy ending to this story. In 2 Corinthians 2, Paul decides that the sinful man has come back to repentance and should be fully restored as a brother. Now the place of the Church is to forgive and comfort him so he's not "swallowed up with much sorrow." By receiving him back again into fellowship, not keeping any records of wrong, they are loving him still, fulfilling the goal of his separation, to understand his sin and the assembly's pride.

In other words, it worked. This man's reaction was not, "what a bunch of condemning and judgmental people." Even if it were, it still would have been love, but we have this incredible testimony of repentance. He realized the seriousness of his sin, repented, and was fully restored.

I have to admit to never seeing this at all. While I've seen a rare instance of loving rebuke and removal of fellowship, I've never seen the situation where the person comes back repentant AND a fellowship loving enough to fully restore, both at once. I believe, as God builds His Church, that we will see the necessity of both the discipline and the restoration in the coming years. Let us love enough to do both.

Peace.

Handing Them Over to Satan Part 3

2008-03-28T16:47:00.002-04:00

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you." I Corinthians 5:9-13

Paul repeats something he's told them before (you repeat things you really want to teach .. especially when people aren't getting it). You cannot keep company with sexually immoral people. But he doesn't mean those in the world. If someone is not a part of the fellowship of the saints, then you're not to cut them off. To do so would require you to have no contact with the world at all, which isolates the Church and the very testimony of Christ.

But to fellowship intimately, in community, with those practicing serious sin, you are compromising the testimony of Christ, not enhancing it. Sinners will be sinners, though. To expect them to be something different is unrealistic. Christians are held to a higher standard. Paul gives the Corinthians a list of no-nos in verse 11 -- sexual immorality, covetousness, idolatry, reviling, drunkenness or extortion -- they were not to associate with those who claimed to be in Christ yet consistently practiced these sins ... struggling is one thing ... giving in is another.

So Paul makes a distinction: there are some who are outside the Church. Some who are outside.

Inside/outside what? A building? An organization? No, the Church, the Kingdom of God, fellowship, a community of faith, whatever kind of organic/spiritual collective expression of Christ you wanna call it. There was a definite line of demarcation in Corinth in some capacity, despite their many, many issues. Some are in, some are out.

And it is the Christian, the Christ-like, responsibility to judge those within, to measure who claim Christ against a standard of true repentance and righteousness.

Again, this is not pride but humility and obedience towards God and the sacred fellowship we are to have with one another and with Christ.

So, to "hand them over to Satan" means to hand them over to God's judgment, not your own, so that he may later be restored. By refusing fellowship, you don't know their hearts fully but their actions, so you are actually refraining from being God and fully judging. Apart from fellowship, this person is completely in God's hands, which is grace and kindness to that man in sin.

I have seen this handled a couple times in a correct way, but there are many difficulties. There are other fellowships that will gladly take another problem child to fill a pew and pay a tithe. Christian leaders from fellowships right next door to one another barely talk civilly, much less care enough about Christians in both fellowships to not "steal sheep" and keep abreast of problems like this.

Because of these problems, many don't deal with discipline at all, just hoping they'll get something "in the sermon" while their brother is on his way to death. Leaders feel helpless in such a system, so structured that it ironically entails much confusion and powerlessness.

Others don't discipline because Church discipline has been abused. Any discipline can be abused, but that doesn't invalidate truth or the dangers of just ignoring problems. Just because some guy beats his kids for the smallest thing does not mean I shouldn't discipline my son at all and just "let him be what he wants to be when he's ready." That is also far from biblical discipline and fraught with failure, another type of abuse (remember one of David's sons that raped his sister ... the scripture says David had never told him "no").

Still uncomfortable?

Okay, I'll try to find some time tomorrow to give you some balance!!

Peace.

Handing Them Over to Satan Part 2

2008-03-27T15:27:00.003-04:00

Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 1 Corinthians 5:6-8

After making sure they understand the seriousness of this sin and the expectation of their response very clear (often times, the Greek language is much harsher than our English interpretation ... not a hard and fast rule, but generally true in these instances), Paul continues to address the boasting of the assembly.

As if he heard it handed down from the original twelve, Paul asks them a rhetorical question, "Don't you know that just a little yeast puffs up the whole loaf of bread?" Jesus dealt with the pride of the religious leaders of His day with the same metaphor.

Paul then begins to make inferences based on the initial Passover feast, which is truly defined as Jesus Christ and His sacrifice. (In the gospels, Jesus wasn't giving them something new called "communion", He was redefining a tradition that had been followed for literally hundreds of years, the Passover, that He was the lamb and the sacrifice that freed them from slavery to become God's people of promise; He was the New Covenant Himself)

Under the rules of the Old Law, the house was to be completely cleaned out of any leaven before the Passover. Not only could they not cook with it during Passover, they were restricted from having any leaven at all. This was to guard against temptation because anyone who ate any leaven over Passover week was to be "cut off from the congregation of Israel."

Are we seeing a pattern here?

By getting rid of their pride, their boasting in sin, they are able to become a "new lump", ready for fellowship with Christ. In verse 8, Paul concludes his Passover metaphor by telling them to purge not only the leaven of pride but malice and wickedness, leaving only the bread of sincerity and truth.

In other words, as Christ is representative of the Passover, get rid of pride, malice, and wickedness so you are able to participate of Christ in sincerity and truth. Pride, malice, and wickedness are not mutually exclusive here ... they are all outshoots of the same root of the flesh.

Despite what many now teach, it was pride to allow this level of unrepentant sin to continue in the fellowship, namely the sin of sexual immorality. Many today would say it is pride or judgmental to deal with other's sexual behavior. Paul is adamant that the opposite is true.

This means that sexual immorality, while it may be behind closed doors, is not private, according to the Bible, among the fellowship of saints.

Think about it. If we are the Body of Christ, connected through community, true faith, and (more importantly) the seal of the Holy Spirit, then there can be no private sin. If one brings sin, especially serious sin like sexual immorality, into the community of faith, it spiritually affects the whole community in ways we do not understand, and maybe not supposed to. But the principle is true just the same, and I guarantee we will see the fruit of it.

More to come in the conclusion ...

Peace.

Quotes of the Week 3.27.2008

2008-03-27T15:16:00.003-04:00

Finished Jesus Among Other Gods by Zacharias. Actually, it finished better than it started. I'll share some quotes here.

The difference between name-calling and calling one by name is world-views apart. ... we see that the difference between a silent world and one in which God has spoken is the dramatic line of division between the theist and the naturalist.

The mockery and ridicule in the Scopes trial was not the mockery of an intellectual over a lunatic. It was the mockery of the voice of man over the voice of God.
In the first garden, God spoke, and humanity denied that He had. Humanism was born, and man became the source of meaning.

Common sense tells us that we cannot live without a moral law. But how does one generate a moral law if God has not spoken? The only answer is to arrange a morality of one's own design that, though mystical and transcendent, is attainable by one's own efforts. This way we appeal to our spiritual bent and at the same time incorporate our self at the center. If we can be good without God but retain a religiosity, we win both the secular and the sacred.

When God sent the plagues upon Egypt in the Old Testament, they were designed to show that He alone was supreme over the objects they had deified (rivers, planets, creatures, magic, and so on) and that there was no other like Him. Nature, humanity, and every other entity or quantity is distinct from God. We cannot try to eliminate that distinction with impunity. From pantheism to the worship of nature, the temptation of the desert is still with us today, to have religion without God.

When the missionary John Paton arrived in the New Hebrides in the mid-1800's, he began translation on the New Testament. He did not know how to illustrate the word BELIEVE. Finally, when he leaned completely on a chair in such a way that his whole weight was on it, the concept of trust emerged. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His one and only Son, that whosoever throws his whole weight on Him, will not perish but have eternal life."

Perhaps if our naturalists would stop looking only for a gardener, they might be surprised at who they would find, or should I say, at who finds them. They might actually hear Him call them by name also and might truly understand the gardens and the deserts of this world for the first time.

Peace.

Quick Kudos

2008-03-26T18:29:00.002-04:00

I'm not as much a fan as a casual lister at times, but Sean Hannity actually impressed me today. Every now and then, as I'm scrolling through the stations on my way home, between 4-5, I hit upon Mr. Hannity and listen if its something interesting. Many times I get tired of just bashing people instead of truly dealing with issues, but other times I appreciate his political thoughts, even on the Democratic race, which are pretty right on most of the time.

Anyway, if you haven't heard, a whole other pastor has been bashing Obama. His name is Manning, and he has said some pretty harsh things about Obama. He actually said Obama came from a white trash mother and a father who was "whoring" for white women. Then he said Obama was "born trash" and then called it the "word of God." Well, Hannity played the clips and had the guy on the radio, severely challenging any semblance of Christianity in said statements. Manning said some other things that were a little more reasonable and valid, but saying someone was "born trash" is just unacceptable for anyone who claims to believe in Christ.

So here Hannity was, calling on this pastor to show some compassion. Hannity openly admitted that he disagrees with much of Obama's policy and the direction he would take the country, but he would never say someone was "born trash." Hannity's actual comment was, "How can you say that about a child?" and "How can you hold Obama responsible for who his parents were."

I know I give some flack to Hannity for the whole "stop Hillary express" and everything, but I actually appreciated his attempt at decency.

Peace

Handing Them Over to Satan Part 1

2008-03-26T14:59:00.002-04:00

Catchy title, eh?

Been sitting on this one a while, meditating on it, but thought it was time to start the series ... should be fun and interesting.

I think one of the ways my Christian walk truly changed was when I stopped interpreting the scripture according to my doctrine or theology and just read it and believed what it said, developing my principles after an honest assessment of the Bible ... instead of developing principles based on a lofty theology and then skimming scripture to support it.

This includes parts we don't like and will probably never hear mentioned by some teacher at a megachurch. But they are in there, and we might as well deal with them.

As we look into some of these scriptures, it becomes important when we re-examine big questions like, what is the Church? What is Her role? Who is She supposed to be? Things like that. It's cool and new to re-examine, to question everything, but often that examination is dishonest and too driven by worldly agendas to really change anything. The emperor is still after we're done making fun of him.

One of these issues is Church discipline, and an uncomfortable one to look at in reference is 1 Corinthians 5, which has the handy quote, "deliver such a one to Satan," hence the catchy title.

In part 1, we'll tackle the first five verses:

It is actually reported that there is ual immorality among you, and such ual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

First off, Paul is amazed that there is extreme sin named among the community of faith, gross ual immorality, at that (a man, on some level, has had some type of ual relationship with his father's wife ... his mother? don't know ... no more detail than that). Paul contends that it is so bad, that even the "Gentiles" (the unsaved) don't do these things.

What's worse to Paul is that they are proud of it. The whole Church is "puffed up" because they have accepted or allowed this sin in their midst. What were they boasting in? Their freedom? Their tolerance? Regardless, they were prideful about it, boasting.

Rather, this should have caused them to mourn, to weep for the sin committed among them. They, as the family of God around this man, should have taken personal responsibility for this sin and felt the seriousness of it intimately.

Then in verse three, Paul firmly announces that they should, in the name of Jesus, place judgment upon this man: to hand him over to Satan.

Here's where it gets interesting. This was obviously some sort of public shaming (done not in secret but while they were gathered together) and expulsion. He basically commands them to do this the next time they met and give this man a swift kick in the rear. They were to no longer associate with him at all.

And, before you start quoting scriptures in your head about not judging and planks and specks, this was to be done in the name of Jesus, in Jesus' stead, with His power, as if Jesus Himself were doing this.

Why? Paul isn't saying this out of malice or revenge or even punishment, but love. Yes, love. Paul's goal here was to expose the acts of the flesh for what they were, the seriousness of them, and the consequences based on their seriousness. What are the consequences? Separation from God and His Kingdom (Paul repeatedly lists people who actively participate in certain sins as not a part of the Kingdom at all).

So how is this love? Well, Paul wanted his soul to be saved in the judgment of Jesus Christ, on that Day. Isn't that love? Not to condemn him. Based on his sin, in God's eyes, he was already condemned. Paul wanted the Church to express by outward expulsion the inward truth that had already occurred.

Now, realize, this was a very serious thing, and this man was unrepentant ... did not even see it as wrong ... and the whole community had been led down this path with him. To keep fellowship with this man, in his unrepentant state in something so serious, was lying to him, thereby hating him. That is the opposite of love.

Also interesting to me is the implication that, on some mystical level I don't understand, to be in fellowship and community is to be in the Kingdom ... that to not have fellowship with this man was to hand him over to Satan ... for his redemption.

Still uncomfortable? There's a happy ending, so stay tuned ...

Peace.

Random Thoughts

2008-03-26T14:58:00.002-04:00

God wants our commitment to Him rather than our education about Him.

You rebuild the temple, then repair the walls, THEN you can hang the Door.

It was said about Christ, "Zeal for Your house has consumed Me." He's waiting for that zeal to consume His Body, too.

Peace.

Sounding Off 3.24.2008 Gun Control

2008-03-24T14:33:00.002-04:00

Not much really happening this week in either Republican or Democratic circles, as far as the pres race stuff goes. Obama will continue to get flack, and some of his other past political relationships will haunt him. If he can weather this storm, though, and get the nomination, he'll still probably beat McCain in the general -- although I have personally heard a couple of my die-hard Democrat friends finding themselves very disappointed with Obama and Hillary and leaning heavily towards McCain. McCain might have more of a shot than I think if the moderates view Obama and Hillary as too liberal, much like they did Kerry in '04.

Hillary has been eerily quiet recently, which means she's found some more reasonable advisors. If she had openly exploited Obama's latest debacle, she would've only continued to make herself look worse, which has been her modus operandi for the past few months.

On to the issue today -- gun control.

Recently, the Supreme Court asserted the right to own a gun ... but also the government's right to place some limitation on that ownership. Relatively safe and accurate constitutional decision, and it only really continues the modern status quo -- enough gray area to give both the NRA and liberals pushing room.

The US has extremely open gun ownership laws for an industrialized country. I know in Korea you cannot own a gun at all. I'm sure there is some illegal gun ownership, but its pretty rare there. In fact, most other nations in Europe and Asia view America as too free in this area.

But just as every nation has their own cultural history, so does America, unique in ways that applying even common standards may not work ... this is the case with gun control. (Funny to me how some are very adamant about not spreading our culture abroad but are more than willing to point to another country and go, "hey, they do it!", to prove some argument)

Historically, the US has maintained the importance of gun rights for two reasons: self-protection and hunting.

Initially, the liberals during the framing of the Constitution would not sign off on the document without something protecting the rights of the individual. They wrote the 10, one of the main ones being the right to own a gun. Britain had attempted to disarm the colonies as they imposed their will upon the Americans. The liberal fear of big government required the protection of that right. The fact that many Americans were members of a allowed the colonists to hold out long enough to get French help.

After independence was attained, the pioneer spirit took over. In "lawless" areas, pioneers felt the need to protect themselves from Native Americans and one another, as well as hunting for food.

Both of these elements have been glorified over our history, for good or ill, and so we have a /hunting culture associated with guns.

Historically, the disarmament of the citizen is an act of despotism and oppression, a way to put more power in the hands of the government to subdue a people and remove their ability to rebel, a monopoly on the power of force much like over-taxation is the power over money and provision. It makes the government the source of both.

I understand the liberal viewpoint though: not necessarily to give more power to the government (although that is what you're doing), but to keep gun from occuring. That is a noble motivation, but I'll ask a couple questions to quickly delve into this issue.

Over the past twenty years, has gun control increased or decreased? Increased dramatically in many areas.

Over those same twenty years, has gun increased or decreased? If we believe the news, this has also increased. School s are common events in the news. They weren't twenty years ago.

So gun control doesn't seem to be working for its intended effect. Not because it isn't a valid idea but because of our cultural history, which will take more than just a couple new laws to change. Those new laws might make politicians sound and look good, but it isn't getting at the root issue of our violent cultural history. We would seriously have to look at rap music, violent movies, TV and gaming, which is touchy concerning free speech rights, also placing more power over us (what we can say and express) by the government.

How about the Church? Well, I wouldn't say it's un-Christian to own a gun (Remember when Jesus told his disciples to bring their swords, and they had a couple ready? That was after being with him for three years ... and he didn't rebuke them for it). At the same time, for most Christians in America, hunting is not a necessity, and we aren't called to protect ourselves physically against even an oppressive government.

Jesus healed the ear of the centurion Peter attacked with that very sword -- and his words to Pilate are very important -- "My Kingdom is not of this world, if it were, my people would fight." We are to love our enemies, not shoot them; die for them, not kill them. We serve the Kingdom of God, are we in need to protect ourselves from the USA? I think God can handle it. If a Christian in China can pray for his government despite its many injustices against humanity, I think we'll have the grace we need when we need it.

One more spiritual point -- the dichotomy between Jesus and Barabas is telling. Jesus was willing to die to save and preached a different message than Barabas the zealot, who attempted to establish a new Israel through and force. As Pilate pleaded with the Jews for the life of their true King, the Jews declared, "We have no king but Ceasar!"

Let's not choose Barabas again and declare an earthly government our King.

Peace.

Quotes of the Week 3.21.2008

2008-03-21T13:55:00.002-04:00

Almost done with these books ...

Jesus Among Other Gods by Zacharias

It often happens that when the moral law protects the , a ceremonial law is invoked to accomplish immoral ends.

Pilate may well be the quintessential example of what politics has come to mean. He knew what was right but succumbed to the seduction of his position.

... nobody is born a Christian. All Christians are such by virtue of conversion. To ask a Christian not to reach out to anyone else from another faith is to ask that Christian to deny his own faith.

From The Pursuit of God by Tozer

The whole Bible supports this idea. God is speaking. Not God spoke, but God is speaking. He is, by His nature, continuously articulate. He fills the world with His speaking voice.

God's word in the Bible can have power only because it corresponds to God's word in the universe. It is the present Voice which makes the writen Word all-powerful. Otherwise it would lie locked in slumber within the covers of a book.

God did not write a book and send it by messenger to be read at a distance by unaided minds. He spoke a Book and lives in His spoken words, constantly speaking His words and causing the power of them to persist across the years.

The tragedy is that our eternal welfare depends upon our hearing and we have trained our ears not to hear.

Just now we happen to be living in a secular age. Our thought habits are those of the scientist, not those of the worshiper. We are more likely to explain than to adore. "It thundered," we exclaim, and go our earthly way. But still the Voice sounds and searches.

The Bible will never be a living Book to us until we are convinced that God is articulate in His universe.

I believe that much of our religious unbelief is due to a wrong conception of and a wrong feeling for the Scriptures of Truth. A silent God suddenly began to speak in a book and when the book was finished lapsed back into silence again forever. Now we read the book as the record fo what God said when He was for a brief time in a speaking mood. With notions like that in our heads, how can we believe?

And one last one:

Can you tell me who Jesus Christ was?
Well, then I will tell you. Alexander, Ceasar, Charlemagne and I myself have founded great empires; but upon what did these creations of our genius depend? Upon force. Jesus alone founded his empire upon love, and to this very day millions will die for Him ... I think I understand something of human nature; and I tell you, all these were men, and I am a man: none else is like Him; Jesus Christ was mare than man ... I have inspired multitudes with such an enthusiastic devotion that they would have died for me ... but to do this it was necessary that I should be visibly present with the electric influence of my looks, my words, of my voice. When I saw men and spoke to them, I lighted up the flame of self-devotion in their hearts ... Christ alone has succeeded in so raising the mind of the man toward the unseen, that it becomes insensible to the barriers of time and space. Across a chasm of eighteen hundred years, Jesus Christ makes a demand which is beyond all others difficult to satisfy; He asks for that which a philosopher may often seek in vain at the hands of his friends, or a father of his children, or a bride of her spouse, or a man of his brother. He asks for the human heart; He will have it entirely to Himself. He demands it unconditionally; and forthwith His demand is granted. Wonderful! In defiance of time and space, the soul of man, with all its powers and faculties, becomes an annexation to the empire of Christ. All who sincerely believe in Him, experience that remarkable, supernatural love toward Him. This phenomenon is unaccountable; it is altogether beyond the scope of man's creative powers. Time, the great destroyer, is powerless to extinguish this sacred flame; time can neither exhaust its strength nor put a limit to its range. This is it, which strikes me most; I have often thought of it. This it is which proves to me quite convincingly the Divinity of Christ.

That was Napoleon.

Peace.

Cardboard Jesus #5

2008-03-21T13:53:00.001-04:00

Cardboard Jesus was over in the corner while I finished writing my blog.

"I see you over there," I said. "I'll be with you when I'm finished."

Peace.

Movie Reviews ... and a little more

2008-03-21T12:02:00.004-04:00

Horton Hears a Who

A group of us went to see this movie over the weekend. As a movie, it was excellent. Although rated G, we all, adults and kids alike, thoroughly enjoyed it. They changed the story, some to extend it into a movie and some to be more pro-liberal (the pouch-schooled joke was particularly pointed), but even most of the changes worked within the overall story.

Horton Hears a Who is a book by Dr. Seuss, a complete literary genius, in my humble opinion. While he was somewhat more popular in my generation and before, there have been a couple recent lame attempts to make movies based on his stories (Grinch was average at best and Cat in the Hat was a disaster).

They got it right in this one. Jim Carrey wasn't over the top and the animation was both modern and honoring to Seuss' style. My only criticism is a cheesy REO Speedwagon cover at the very end (a Shrek-like debacle -- didn't need it -- not original).

For those going to see the movie, or have seen it, Horton Hears a Who is very symbolic. At some point, I may do a series on this, but others pointed it out to me first, so I don't really feel like I have the creative license. But the whole story centers around life on a speck that no one but Horton, an elephant, can hear. Horton is symbolic of the Church (whose only power is one of hearing the Voice of God), and the speck is the unborn.

Think I'm crazy? It goes on. The kangaroo (court) represents the Supreme Court, the law, that is adamant about the unborn not being truly alive, or a person (the same argument the Supreme Court made about slavery in the 1850's to justify the injustice then). To support her are the monkeys, symbolic of evolutionists who argue that no life is divine, that we are all just another form of animal, that humans are only evolved primates, which makes the unborn "just another mass of flesh and tissue".

And it must be the Church above all others that must speak out for the innocent who cannot speak for themselves -- how do you get any more innocent and voiceless? -- even though others will mock you, call you names -- like "conservative Christian" -- gasp! We must know that the blood of the innocent cries out (like Abel in Genesis) to God Himself.

I've made my feelings on abortion clear before. It, more than any other sin, defines this generation, much as slavery did in the 1800's and racism through the 1900's.

Did Dr. Seuss mean it to symbolize these things? Probably not. I would guess he meant it to symbolize the need to protect life in any form especially lives we believe are "small." This could mean the poor or those in "third world" countries, whatever.

Did Carrey, Carrell, Carol Burnett, and the makers of the movie know the message they were participating in? Much more unlikely. It wouldn't have passed the Bono Litmus test. But God says what He wants to say, even if he uses donkeys to do so.

Did this color my review? Maybe. But I also think it's a great story, and they were extremely creative with it. Worth seeing with or without kids.

And the message is clear. A person is a person, no matter how small.

(by the way, I paid matinee price -- $8! Why isn't anyone complaining about price inflation at the movies? I remember when gas was under a dollar a gallon and a matinee movie was like three bucks. Why don't we profit tax movie makers or actors? Does an actor or producer really need to make more money? Just a thought)

Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium

While not as good as Horton, still a surprisingly good movie. The first time I saw the poster for this movie, I immediately dismissed it. It just looked very candy/cheesy to me.

They should have done a better job with their marketing, because it actually possessed some deep themes. Mr. Magorium is leaving this magical toy store (i.e., he is dying) and others must take up the responsibility for it to carry on. Also a personal thing for me, as someone who has dealt with the death of a mentor, but I thought well done.

The actors all did a great job, the story was simple but good, and there were moments I truly enjoyed. I did actually cry -- but I'm fasting, and that tends to make me more emotional, so give me a break.

Peace.

Sounding Off -- Adendum

2008-03-18T18:07:00.002-04:00

If Obama had said what he said in his speech initially ... or a close fascimile ... instead of denying he ever heard such statements and would leave the church or talk to the pastor if he ever did ... would have been way better.

Obama actually made some good, sound, balanced points in his speech. His denial might come back to haunt him, but good save with the speech.

Peace.

Quick Link for New Film

2008-03-18T17:55:00.002-04:00

Haven't seen the whole movie yet, but someone shared this clip with me ... its not too long, but longer than a regular preview, so be prepared. This is from Ben Stein (Ferris Bueller fame), and it looks really cool. Quite an indictment on a "free" society.

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playgroundvideo3.swf

Peace.

Random Thoughts

2008-03-18T14:01:00.002-04:00

God is more concerned with a true heart of repentance than the actual sin. A true heart of repentance prepares you for a life of righteousness -- just being apologetic excuses the next sin.

You cannot heal Babylon. You must leave it.

We must redefine relevance. The latest degree, designer, movie, TV show, style of music, album, tech gadget, speaker, teacher, book, or philosophical movement are all irrelevant. The Church must know God and love. That alone is relevant.

Peace.

Sounding Off 3.17.2008 Gay Marriage

2008-03-17T13:51:00.002-04:00

The whole issue this past week with Jeremiah Wright and Obama has been interesting. Of course I disagree with some, or much, of what Mr. Wright has said, but more importantly I've lost some respect for Obama.

Not because I really know now what he believes or something. I always knew I was going to fundamentally disagree with him on many issues, namely raising taxes to force the redistribution of wealth and abortion. But up to this point I respected him for trying to keep above the fray, the negative cesspool much of modern politics has become, which is exponentially more difficult in a battle with the Clintons.

I've lost respect for him because he decided to play a political game to further his career and distance himself from a friend. He condemned Mr. Wrights statements, many of them racist in their own right and what I could call "liberal speech," and then asserted that he'd never heard those statements before. What? You've called this man a personal mentor, a close personal friend, an inspiration for your book, attended his church for 20 years, had the man officiate your marriage and the dedication of your children, and had him in a primary position in your campaign. You knew none of these personal positions and beliefs? Of course he did.

However I feel about Wright's comments (despite the tone and context, he makes a couple good points), I would have more respect for Obama if he would say, "Yes, I know he has said those things, and I know he believes them strongly. He is my friend and spiritual advisor and we disagree very strongly on many things. Despite those differences, however, we will always remain close friends."

Now on to the issue of the day.

Oh, boy, gay marriage. Some of you are cringing inside just wondering what could be said. I'll try not to disappoint.

Historically, it is a sign of the beginning of the end of a culture when homosexuality is openly accepted and embraced. Whether this is simply a correlation or cause and effect, people with more time on their hands than me can argue that, but it is there.

Of course homosexuality still existed in these cultures before the widespread acceptance. Because of its hidden nature and rarity, it's hard to truly pinpoint the historical scope, but most cultures viewed it as wrong to some degree.

Israel, at least in its inception, was possibly the strictest of these ancient cultures, and their laws against homosexuality (lumped in with and incest) were notably brutal.

The New Testament takes a different perspective. Homosexuality is still considered wrong, but the people of God are not interested in positions of political power; they are more concerned with a different kingdom that has no natural borders or laws. So the New Testament does not require the physical of that individual but does inidcate the level of depravity within homosexuality that is inconsistent with the eternal kingdom of God. Just like greed and idolotry, they are not conducive.

All that being said, I don't feel it is our goal as the Church to force a kingdom morality upon an earthly nation, namely keeping gay marriage illegal (you could say the same for the public redistribution of wealth). In fact, in America at least, its become a little hypocritical to do so.

Before I deal with the hypocrisy, let me deal with a couple other thoughts. First of all, if I need an earthly government to validate my marriage, there's a problem. My commitment to Becca was out of love and righteousness, and that is the kingdom of the New Covenant. If I rely too much on a piece of paper some seminary grad (or other earthly authority) had to sign, we're dealing with a different covenant entirely.

Second, I have a problem with the idea that there needs to be an amendment to the Constitution on defining marriage. America did not institute, nor can it define, marriage, and we've come too far down a humanistic road if we believe that the Constitution is some absolute we can rely upon for morality. God defines what is righteousness, not the Constitution. An amendment to the Constitution to "protect" or "define" marriage is just as problematic to me (as in idolatry) as legalizing gay marriage.

Third, would keeping gay marriage illegal keep homosexuals from participating in the actual lifestyle or sin? Of course not. While it could be argued that legalizing gay marriage furthers the deception that it's okay, I believe that shouldn't affect the Church very much.

Most important to me is the failure of the Church in this whole thing. Our first problem has been our inability to love those of homosexual lifestyles. By and large, the Church reacts out of fear, scorn, mockery, and downright , treating homosexuals as some kind of social leper. Many who have recognized this as wrong have gone to the other extreme and refuse to say it is wrong at all. I know few examples of a balanced approach: loving the individual and offering the Church as a place of healing and redemption.

The Church's second problem is that we are not truly standing for heterosexual marriage, either. As I addressed before, the of divorce is eating away at the testimony of the Church. Those advocating the legalization of gay marriage don't have to look too far into those who claim Christ before they find some seriously unhealthy relationships. Of course some of this is propaganda by liberals, but a 50% divorce rate in the "church" doesn't speak well of us.

So I think we should fix this first. Learn how to love homosexuals in righteousness, offering the community of faith as a place for restoration, redemption and healing, and truly fight for the sanctity of marriage that is meant to reflect Christ and His Church. Judgment begins with the house of God. He is looking to US, not the world, to be the standard of what is right and wrong. If we don't address these things, our love and our testimony, legalizing gay marriage won't really matter.

Peace.

The Church as a Nag

2008-03-14T12:35:00.002-04:00

We are set to be married to Christ. The day approaches when this world, and all its blessing and cursing and fault and even divine expression, will move aside in violent upheaval to allow the Bride of Christ a clear path to her Husband's side.

In the meantime, the engagement, as it were, we are learning how to be the wife. This entails things like following, trust, and obedience. Certain things become necessary to fulfilling these characteristics, namely hearing His voice and the empowerment (grace) to respond appropriately.

(As I begin this discussion, it will seem one-sided at times; I am focusing on the role of the wife more than the husband. This is a message to the Church, specifically ... while it may have implications for husbands and wives in this world, and most assuredly does, my goal is not to address common husband-wife issues ... I would be spending at least as much time, if not more, on the husband side of the issue ... since we are dealing with Christ and the Church, He doesn't get any criticism.)

The initial misunderstanding that inhibits the realization of this calling, at least in more Westerninzed cultures, is the individualization that occurs. I am not the Bride. WE are the Bride. God will not marry me individually, but a people whole and complete.

Some may express this mindset but fail to exemplify it, hoping that, despite the personal isolation of its members, God is okay with a mass of spastic cells instead of a unified Body. This unification is meant, at least biblically, to start on a local scale and to be realized in actuality, not just superficial association.

In essence, this individualism creates dysfunction.

Next, to use notions of Husband and Bride calls into context our cultural perspectives on courtship. Someone from a society where marriages are still arranged would have a different idea of what it means to be the Bride of Christ than someone who might live in a society where courtship is completely initiated by the individuals themselves.

In context, where the scripture talks of being the Bride of Christ, most looked at that through the lens of arranged marriage. And regardless of our prideful assertion that we have progressed beyond such barbarism, arranged marriage is still more consistent with the principles of following Christ than modern romance.

In fact, our idea of modern romance gives us a picture of God that is just not true. It is not we who must accept Him, but He who must accept us. God is not some pathetic suitor who is just begging us to take Him back. Just as our modern romance places the woman and her needs as the judge and standard and focus, our modern, Westernized Christianity does the same.

This is of Babylon, not the Church. Babylon is an independent woman, beautiful on her own, and declares, "I am not a widow, I have a husband," when she actually does not. The Church knows that, apart from Her Husband, she is nothing, worthless, and doomed. All of her identity and life is swallowed by His love, passion, will, and direction.

These two concepts, individuality and independence, makes us a nagging Church. Because of our feminized modern view of women, she is the ruler of the house, the raiser of the children, and the determiner of right and wrong. Just look at most commercials or sitcoms ... the husband is a dolt and the wife rolls her eyes and tells him what is best. The husband is there to provide and to assist her. Therefore, her communication with him is relegated to two things: what I want from you (that I can't get myself) and what I need (that I can't get myself).

Some might take offense at my generalizations, but let me share an extreme example to illustrate my point. I was watching an Oprah long ago (not proud of it, but I did), and she had on all these women who had cheated on and then left their husbands (Oprah was discussing the rise of women committing ery ... or having an affair, as she called it). Each woman on the panel (probably an unscientific sampling, but stay with me), when giving an excuse for why they cheated, stated, "He wasn't meeting my needs," and each felt absolutely justified in that response. When Oprah pointed out the obvious hypocrisy in that statement, she asked, "Why are men who cheat seen as jerks when they use that excuse?" The women on the panel only answered that a man would be a jerk for using that excuse, while still justifying their own reasoning. The double standard was asserted: "It wasn't me who was supposed to meet his needs, it was he who was supposed to meet mine."

While this is extreme, I admit, these mentalities play in our media and get fed into our consciousness. This sets up a Bride of Christ who comes to God for two reasons: what I want and what I need (that I can't get for myself). This makes her a nag and ugly in the eyes of God. She doesn't trust His promise to provide. She more trusts her ability to get it from Him, even in supposedly biblical doctrines that manipulate Him into doing so. Of course this is feeding the flesh, "asking amiss," as James points out, and since the flesh can never be satisfied -- or in His mercy God refuses to be moved -- this further frustrates the Church and makes her a miserable woman to live with.

She's not even seeking ways to give to Him, pleading for Him to let her bless Him in some way, any way. She is seeking only to get.

What about "casting your cares upon Him"? This is not liscense to complain to God. First of all, we are given a reason for casting our cares: He cares for us. There is a vast difference between casting our cares upon Him out of complete trust and recognition that it is us who needs to change and trying to manipulate Him into giving us what we want, or nag Him into doing it. Jesus told us that when you ask, your Father already knows you need it. Jesus also told us that our Father cares enough to provide what we need. So why do we cast our cares upon Him? To free ourselves from the selfish of anxiety over our needs, when we know our Husband will provide because of His great love for us. This is confession, not manipulation.

Check out how Song of Solomon describes the bride. That is how God views a people who trust completely in His provision and come to Him to ask, "what is it You need from me today?" He seeks to know her, to love her, to be intimate with her.

Check out how Proverbs views a nagging wife. God would rather be on the corner of the roof than in that house.

Peace.

Quotes of the Week 3.13.2008

2008-03-14T12:25:00.003-04:00

Been busy at work and still working through the same two books ... still some good stuff coming ...

Jesus Among Other Gods by Zacharias

... most skeptics begin their challenge to God's existence with the problem of evil or at least reserve their greatest emotion for that discussion. But in doing so, they dig a deeper pit than the one they are trying to get out of, because raising the problem of evil without God runs the risk of failing to justify the question.

We are not merely observers to the reality of evil. We are involved in it beyond mere academic discussion.

Love can only be what it was meant to be when it is wedded first to the sacred.

Goodness in the face of evil is magnificent, because it is more than goodness; it is the touch of God.

I recall talking to a very successful and very wealthy businessman who throughout the conversation repeatedly raised this question, "But what about all the evil in this world?" Finally, the friend sitting next to me said to him, "I hear you constantly expressing a desire to see a solution to the problem of evil around you. Are you as troubled by the problem of evil within you?" In the pin-drop silence that followed, the man's face showed his duplicity.

The Pursuit of God by Tozer

Important as it is that we recognize God working in us, I would yet warn against a too-great preoccupation with the thought. It is a sure road to sterile passivity. God will not hold us responsible to understand the mysteries of election, predestination and the divine sovereignty. The best and safest way to deal with these truths is to raise our eyes to God and in deepest reverence say, "Oh, Lord, thou knowest." Those things belong to the deep and mysterious profound of God's omniscience. Prying into them may make theologians, but it will never make saints.

Now we have reached a low place of sand and burnt wire grass and, worst of all, we have made the Word of Truth conform to our experience and accepted this low plane as the very pasture of the blessed. It will require a determined heart and more than a little courage to wrench ourselves loose from the grip of our times and return to biblical ways.

Peace.

Capitalism in Community

2008-03-12T15:11:00.002-04:00

You learn things by living overseas, mainly that being an American isn't all its ed up to be in certain ways, and a more objective view of the world can adjust your thinking in a healthy way, if you look at things with a balanced perspective and don't get too caught up in hating or loving one culture unduly.

One of the things I learned while living overseas, in Korea, was how they worked out capitalism within a communal culture. Being Asian, they possess a more collective mindframe. Not all of this difference is healthy, but much of it is.

After living there for a while, I noticed that they had a plethora of stores, and located everywhere, even stories high. Every block you have access to the basic necessities in a little market. And they are all the same, too, carrying mostly the same stuff. You can also find a pharmacy, a shoe store (or other clothing apparel), an internet cafe, and a few other services within a block walking distance of your apartment.

Of course, part of this approach is more urban than suburban, and Korea being the most densely populated country in the world has something to do with this, as well. But the overabundance (in my mind) of the same types of stores everywhere caused me to ask, "How do all these little markets all stay in business?" This was asked out of American ignorance.

In America, part of our capitalistic notion of competition attempts to get rid of, or take business away from, that competition. The Koreans don't really possess this mentality.

Oh, I'm sure they have greedy people and jerks, too, like everywhere else I've been in the world, but their idea of success is not that the market a block away goes out of business because you're doing so well and growing so fast. The ultimate goal, generally, is to do enough business to provide a decent living -- or at least keep the business afloat. In fact, Koreans actually wish that both markets would do well and stay open. They might actually be friends.

These are modest, healthy and community minded goals, in my opinion. I'm talking about the local economic community here, not the community of faith, necessarily. They are more interested in sustaining than monopolizing.

Another example of capitalism in community is the big market system, generally in Seoul. They have different "markets": electronics, crafts, cloths, musical instruments, different industry markets. Here's what happens at these places. Let's say I go to the electronics mart. You go into a big building or down a major street and there are little stores everytwhere, and each store is highly specialized. This guy sells blank media, this guy sells cameras, this guy sells DVD players, this guy TVs ... you get the idea. and they are completly content selling you a DVD player while you go right next to them and buy a TV. And there are dozens of each little specialized store right there.

Preying on the laziness and desire for convenience of Americans (most people in the world, probably), the US has created something called a department store, where you can have anything you want all in the same store. Instead of going to all these little shops (where each person owns his or her own business), we go to Best Buy where we can get the computer, the blank media, the DVD player, the DVDs, and whatever else we need ... or maybe do the same at Wal-Mart and get some snacks there, too.

This makes customers dispensible. There are now so many customers that walk through these large stores that an individual customer's needs mean nothing. In the US, we have to train people to be kind and nice, to say, "have a nice day", all in the name of more profit, anyway.

In a sense, Koreans prefer a smaller business because they have a manageable amount of customers they can have a relationship with. Being more collective and communal, your purchase at their store makes you friends (for lack of a better word). You now have relationship. The more you return to that business, the more relationship you have with each other.

I'll give a short story to illustrate. We took my parents out to eat at a restaurant a few blocks away from where we were living (we walked). Becca and I visited this place often with groups and on our dates. Micah had just been born, the reason for my parents' visit, about a month old. While we were eating, Micah started getting fussy. The wife of the owner, working back in the kitchen, had finished our food, came out, took Micah from us and took care of him while we ateht my mom was gonna have a heart attack. (This happened more than once after Micah was born -- one day we were there at lunch and the same woman took Micah across the street to show him off to another store owner -- we weren't as comfortable with that -- still a little American, I guess)

This is changing in Korea, unfortunately. They are building more and more department stores (E-Mart is their Wal-Mart) where you can get pretty much everything in one stop, which is more toward a type of suburban mentality (less relationship based, more isolated) and will ultimately hurt those little market dudes and dudettes.

I really miss going to this restaurant to eat and that store to get my shirt and that place to get my DVDs and having relationship with them all.

So how do we change it? Well, its not easy. Even moving back, the convenience of certain things are really nice (we did go to E-Mart in Korea from time to time, as well). I admit I can be a sucker for it too. And while there are places in the US where little mom and pop places thrive, Atlanta doesn't have the culture for it really. Atlanta is better known for its abundance of chain stores more than small business guys who do a really good job, which is unfortunate because the Atlanta area has them, too. You just gotta find them, and we barely take enough time to do anything, much less be intentional about supporting local small businesses, which I do believe is the right thing to do.

Maybe one day God will move us downtown or to another place in the Metro area where we can live closer to this again ... or maybe another country is necessary ... who knows? Either way I'd like to get there again.

Peace.

Random Thoughts 3.11.2008

2008-03-11T12:17:00.002-04:00

Tragedy possesses its own beauty. And what we consider beautiful is often tragic.

Why do we spend so much time on having right doctrine and so little time being righteous?

Josiah read the book of law, recognized the sin of the nation, tore his clothes, humbled himself, and saved his nation from the wrath of God during his lifetime. We read the same book, twist the words so they're not really sins anymore and then laugh at God's wrath.

Peace.

Sounding Off 3.10.2008 Immigration

2008-03-10T14:58:00.003-04:00

Little updates first:

Hillary has made her move, as I suspected, and neither she nor Obama can possibly have enough delegates to outright win the nomination. This makes the "superdelegates" even more crucial, actually absolutely necessary, to each candidate. This whole process has exposed the Democratic primary system as a joke. It is possible, under their system, that a nominee can have more pledged delegates, voted on by the people of the pary, and can still lose the nomination based solely on high-ranking party members who have a different view. This is pretty elitist and un-democratic for a group called the Democratic Party.

As far as Bush goes, I'm not sure vetoing the waterboarding bill was such a good thing. Before my conservative friends give me too hard a time, I realize the Democratic Congress probably padded waterboarding with other semi-strict techniques (like calling names or something), but as is usual with Bush, he acts and doesn't educate, giving the media and the Democrats more fuel for their .

On to the subject of the day:

Immigration. This is a pretty complicated issue, and not something we can generally solve on a blog, but I have some thoughts to share.

First of all, let's look at the international viewpoint of immigration. I don't know of a single industrialized nation that, if they were able, would not strictly control their borders. Move the bulk of our army right off of Mexico's borders, and you'll see fairly quickly how important their border is to them. After 9/11, America more strictly controlled those getting visas and citizenship, but overall, we are way more liberal with it than most of the world. This doesn't include the countries that would shoot you if you got close, many of which Bill Clinton gave American tax dollars to. It should also bear mentioning that many countries are very racial in their profiling with visas and other freedoms. I don't hear many protests going on about that, just how racist conservatives are for wanting a secure border.

All that being said, it is completely within the rights of a nation to control its borders, as strictly as it feels necessary for its own protection. The amount of illegals coming in does hurt America socially and economically. And saying that most of the illegals are Mexican is not racist, it's just true. How we might view those Mexicans could be construed as racist, but it is also true that violent crime and the of make their way across that border. There are real dangers there. And there are no "law-abiding" illegal immigrants. That's an oxymoron.

In the sense that our Canadian border is pretty open and we don't seem to have as big of a problem with that, that could be racist. I mean, do we really want a whole bunch of Canadians here, either? Well, except for the comedians.

But we also have to admit to a certain amount of hypocrisy here. I mean, we were technically "illegal immigrants" when the Mayflower hit these shores. There were nations of people already living here. Their only sin was that they were a different color and not strong enough militarily to push back. And when they attempted to defend their own homeland, as many conservatives are discussing, they became villanized and demonized.

This whole nation was established by illegal immigrants. This nation's propensity for making agreements and then finding stupid reasons to break them, reasons they provoked anyway, does not shed us in good light ... much less moral standing to be so adamant about a strict solution.

Didn't most English, Dutch, and Spanish come to the Americas for the opportunities and to exploit the native population in the process? They absolutely did, and they saw no problem with it. It wasn't until this last century that it became popular to question the morality of those decisions then. People protested then, but they were few and quickly silenced.

What if it is the Mexican Manifest Destiny to slowly but surely immigrate to this country and take over? Sounds ridiculous, but 150 years ago this nation argued the same divine right to take land. The Americans moved in by illegal immigration to take over the Northwest (remember the Oregon Trail) and Texas (remember the Alamo -- Americans moved into Texas, a Mexican colony, breaking Mexican laws, one of them possessing slaves when it was illegal in Mexico to do so, and then when there were enough Americans and the conflict got to the right point, they declared their own independence and the rest is history).

So while I will admit the dangers of illegal immigration and the problems it causes, I feel a little silly being too adamant about a position that our "founding fathers" so flippantly found illogical in other nations.

So what should the Church do? Well, I don't think the Church should support illegal immigration ... but at the same time, we have to be careful how we support efforts to repatriate these people. I think the Church should look at this as a prime opportunity. I mean, think about it, God is bringing the nations to us. And we complain about it, make fun of them? What an opportunity to evangelize, to give to those less fortunate, to prove the compassion of the heart of God towards all men. Are we supporting illegal immigration if we do these things? Absolutely not. The Kingdom of God has no borders and it is not the Church's job to defend them. If they truly are in our country out of need, let's give to them.

There were illegal immigrants in Korea, too, for many of the same reasons we have them here (low paying jobs that paid way more than in their homeland). These were Philippino or African, but similar situations. A couple of my friends ministered to them, did not turn them in, but when they were caught, realized that Korea had a right to kick them out. Pretty neutral and I liked it.

I think our position should be the same. How do we know that God didn't allow these "illegals" here so we could spread the Kingdom of God to the rest of the world? I actually believe that is exactly what He is doing.

Instead we see these illegals as a threat, we lock our doors and go into deeper debt to get away from the poor that are moving right next door. God is giving into our laziness and bringing them to our doors and then we move away. Tragic. Too many Christians have married their faith so closely with their suburban isolationist ideals that they can't see the light in the eyes of other human beings, made in the image of God.

So while America may lose out, the Kingdom of God can win if we reach out and let it. Not really much of a political solution, but one I can get behind.

Peace.

Sometimes You Have Some Free Time

2008-03-09T18:09:00.002-04:00

... and you make a video. We were three coaches with a video camera and players who had a hard time understanding our directions because of language issues. So we made fools of ourselves and made this.

Enjoy.

Peace.

Quotes of the Week 3.7.2008

2008-03-07T11:28:00.002-05:00

More from Jesus Among Other Gods by Zacharias:

It is possible to hold a treasure in your hand but be ignorant of it and go for the wrapping instead.

Jesus took pains to show them that their preoccupation with bread as the primary purpose and expression of enjoyment had seriously displaced both what bread was meant to do and what life was meant to be.

In short, if we are to truly understand who we are, we must understand what bread can and cannot do.

We are not in need merely of a superior ethic. We are in need of a transformed heart and will that seek to do the will of God.

... the task of the Church is not to make God relevant to the people as much as it is to make people relevant to God.

And from The Pursuit of God by Tozer:

The "other world" which is the object of this world's disdain and the the subject of the drunkard's mocking song, is our carefully chosen goal and the object of our holiest longing.

Peace.

Cardboard Jesus #4

2008-03-07T11:27:00.000-05:00

Cardboard Jesus has long hair.

I'm not sure why.

Peace.

Discipleship According to the Karate Kid -- Conclusion

2008-03-06T10:44:00.002-05:00

Unfortunately, we don't have a complete picture of what discipleship should look like in our modern age of program oriented Christianity. We have replaced what should be organic and relational with organization and bureacracy.

Discipleship in the Kingdom goes both ways. While one person might be more mature, he learns just as much in the process as the one being taught. It is natural. When we truly give of ourselves so that others can have life, we get more life than we could ever give up. The fathers and mothers in the faith, by necessity, also need to grow up to be what they need to be. It is a growing experience for all.

This is more evident in the 2nd Karate Kid movie, where the conflict is really Miyagi's and Daniel is the support system for his master. While Miyagi is still the teacher, he needs comfort and support from his student, and must learn to receive it.

I can't express well enough the need for these kinds of relationships in the Body of Christ. Not more classes or programs, but community and giving and relationship, vulnerability that deals with real issues and changes EVERYONE, not just the young and supposedly immature. When you stop learning, you stop growing, and when you stop growing, you're .

I owe much of my Christianity to a man who understood these things. Oh, he had his faults, but he taught not just doctrine or theology but life, wisdom, practicality. He made himself vulnerable, asked forgiveness, and proved to be more mature and wise than any other man or woman who had discipled me up to that point, and I had some good ones growing up, too. And when I flew back from Korea to attend his memorial since he passed from this life to the next, few that knew me in Korea had an inkling as to why my "pastor's" should affect me so deeply.

He was my Miyagi. He was my friend. And he thought I was pretty OK too. I feel his loss still, and probably always will, but I understand even more the blessing he was to me. That is what I wish for others.

Peace.

Should've Played the Lottery Last Night

2008-03-06T10:27:00.002-05:00

I mean, really ... after the wonderful morning of God's grace and mercy through a great first half of the day ... it just kept on going.

Becca talked to the good friend of ours who is doing our taxes and, booyah, we won't have to pay anything (which we've been saving for since we've had non-taxed income coming in last year). Then Micah got up from his nap, still wanted to go for the potty thing, and after dinner we had a success on the potty. As a reward, we went to Wal-Mart (Micah's choice) to get his big boy Superfriends underwear.

As a good father should, I've been educating my son in the classics: Flash Gordon first and now Superfriends. Micah loves the Superfriends and has started wearing a cape around the house from time to time. We went to Wal-Mart, got Superman and Batman underwear, and we went to check out the toy section.

Like, three or four toys, total, of Superman or Batman ... none of the other Superfriends characters, although there were a ton of Marvel characters (Spiderman, the Hulk, Wolverine, etc). I thought it was an epic fail ... On our way out, I eyed the little machine where you put 50 cents in the thing and try to place the grip thing right over some cheap plush toy probably made somewhere by an oppressed Asian, push the button, and leave frustrated ...

But tonight I eyed a plush Superman doll right on top, a little wedged. I thought I should try. I asked my wife (the keeper of change) for 50 cents. I played, and ...

Booyah! Stuffed Superman doll in my son's hands. I'm telling you, I should have played the lottery ... but that might have been pushing it.

Once we got home, Micah again had a success in the potty. Thinking he might be finished, we let him try on one of the new underwear. He wasn't totally done and peed a little on the floor ... next to Eric's computer corner. We cleaned it up, changed Micah, and sent him to bed ... flying Superman and Aquaman (his juice cup ... why do I get him toys?) to bed (an hour and a half later, he was still flying Superman around in his room ... in the dark ... once Micah was asleep, Superman was in his arms and Piglet was just in the bed ... has a coup occured?).

Eric got home while I was watching some TV (a Superfriends documentary ... no joke), and as he was telling us of his night hanging with the guys, Saji and Jeremy, he stopped and said, "Why is it wet over here?" He was barefoot.

"That's pee," I said.

Eric was speechless and wide-eyed for about two seconds before he said, "What is wrong with you people! I'm over here barefooted and you didn't tell me Micah peed over here? Now I have to wash my foot!"

We tried not to laugh too hard while we explained that the wetness was because we had cleaned it up. We never got the end of the story.

Then Becca and I went to bed and, well, I'll end the testimony section there.

Peace.

Things That Are Ruining Me

2008-03-05T16:44:00.002-05:00

First and foremost, this blog, Joel 2 Generation. Very mystical and real, the testimonies shared on this site have given me hope of a real place where we can get to .... and it also discourages me that we're not really there, yet. I mean, this is Acts of the Apostles kinda stuff.

Second, I watched Beyond the Gates last night, a movie about the Rwandan genocide in the mid-90's. I'm pretty familiar with the history of it, and even was at the time, despite how ignorant most people around the world were at the horror going on (don't be too impressed ... I was studying African history in college ... but I had to go to page A52 in the paper to get to the international section to read about it. Bosnia was more front page.) The movie was really well done. Of course it pissed me off all over again.

The UN was worthless in this instance ... and in general ... and this is who we want to hand over Iraq to? Can't imagine that being a good idea. Watch the movie. It is historically accurate and not favorable to the UN or the West in general.

The movie was incredibly honest, I thought, saying things that need to be said and mentioned. Semi fictitious, it was based on a real school that the UN protected ... for a couple days.

These kind of movies really affect me now, especially now that I have kids. Not that these things weren't tragic to me before ... just on a deeper level because I have my own children. I also appreciated the movie because even during the worst of it, God was there, and they tried to ask those honest questions, too.

So that's that for today ...

Peace.

Wednesday Morning Testimonies

2008-03-05T16:34:00.003-05:00

Last night, Becca and I prayed together about a couple things. Well, I prayed specifically for a couple things. First, I prayed that Micah would be motivated to obey, to be mature, and be potty trained. I also prayed that Becca's sickness would not be strep throat.

Becca went to the doctor, and I got Micah ready for school. I was the first face he saw in the morning (I know, pretty scary), and he said, "I want to go pee pee and poo poo in the potty. I want Superfriends underwear. Daddy wears underwear. Saji wears underwear. Eric has underwear. They don't have diapers." Now, to understand where the underwear comment comes from, we've told him that when he goes in the potty, he gets to pick out his own underwear, and he wants Thomas the Train and Superfriends underwear. So here he is, first thing in the morning, telling me that he wanted to go in the potty and wear underwear like men in his life that he knows. I was amazed. (He didn't actually go this morning, but he tried ... we had to go to school.)

Next, Becca called me and said, "No strep throat."

As an aside, on the way to school, my 2 1/2 year old son points at the stop sign on the school bus and says, slowly, like he's reading it, "S .. T ... O... P ... stop!" If I weren't fasting, I'd have crapped my pants.

I called Becca and said, "Did you teach that to him or did he just learn how to read on his own?" She admitted that she read him a stop sign on a school bus, like, two weeks ago. So my amazement abated ... a little.

Either way, after some struggles over the past two days, this morning was incredible.

Peace.

Random Thoughts

2008-03-04T15:52:00.002-05:00

We should remove the words "my" and "mine" from our vocabulary.

Going through the eye of a needle, while possible with God, is still pretty painful.

Let the moon be disgraced and the sun ashamed; the Lord of Hosts reigns in Jerusalem and before His elders, gloriously.

Peace.

Sounding Off 3.03.2008 Taxes

2008-03-03T13:50:00.002-05:00

Tomorrow's primaries are again filled with drama for the Democrats. While Obama clearly has the momentum, Clinton could steal it here and make for a dogfight all the rest of the way. With many of the "superdelegates" on her side, Hillary can swing things. We'll see what happens. Hillary's been increasingly desperate, and that hasn't really been working for her. But she's staying the course now.

The reports that some of the African American superdelegates dedicated to Clinton are getting pushed to switch to Obama by others in the black community is sad, but not surprising, again showing the inherent within those who take certain things to an extreme.

On to the topic of the day:

Thought I'd talk about taxes this week. A government must have a way to get money. A state must have funds to do the work it is tasked to do. The most popular way to do this is taxes.

The income tax is not actually constitutional. It was instituted by FDR and never taken away, even though the country survived without it for a good century or more. Since then we've increased taxes, gradually, and seen some of the highest tax increases in the last twenty years (#1 was signed in by Bill Clinton ... #2 belongs to George Bush, Sr.).

The "Bush tax cuts" are a main topic of many of the candidates, on both sides. Generally, Republicans are interested in maintaining those tax cuts while Democrats are generally against them on principle. These are broad generalizations, but still true.

Raising taxes does raise revenue, but many times it also causes the economy to slow down. This happens for a couple different reasons. Businesses have to raise prices to deal with the cost of new taxes. People buy and invest less because they have less money or have the perception of less money. People lose jobs this way, unemployment goes up, yada yada, you are in a little recession. This happened with George Bush, Sr. He was elected, partially, on the slogan, "no new taxes." Then he signed the biggest tax increase in the history of America (designed by a Democratic Congress). Two years later we were in a recession he wouldn't admit to having.

Cutting taxes increases revenue even more. This has been proven time and time again throughout history. Why does this happen? Well, the opposite of reasons from before. People have more money. Businesses have more money. Inflation is low because general costs are down and people are spending more money and investing. This creates more jobs, which creates more income, which pays more taxes, which increases revenue.

Raising taxes is a vicious cycle. You always have to keep raising them, hurting the economy, and receiving little actual increased revenue in return. Cutting taxes does the opposite. It creates way more revenue for the government and improves the overall economy. Interesting to me how the liberals can see how the increase of gas prices is hurting the economy but seems oblivious to how raising taxes does the same thing.

Therefore, if a state wants to create more revenue for programs or new issues to solve, it needs to cut taxes. It really is pretty simple.

Now, some are saying, Reagan cut taxes, why did the deficit go up? Because spending increased more than revenue. Reagan cut deals with the Democratic Congress so that he could increase military spending. His increased military spending was paltry compared to the increased domestic spending through welfare and other social programs instituted in the 80's. Look up the budgets through those years. It is astounding how those programs expanded compared to military spending ... and yet Reagan's military spending is blamed for the deficit.

Under Bush, Jr., same issue. Revenue did go up after his tax cuts, but spending also increased, more than revenue. This spending isn't all military, either. Bush has signed a whole lot of pet Democratic projects into being to make friends and show he can try to work with the Democrats, which of course he will get no credit for, either from the Democrats or from the media. But he did. Therefore, the deficit continues to increase.

America is dangerously close (some say she already is) to oppressing its people with taxes. Almost every empire that has failed (Rome, China, etc) also overtaxed its citizens, proving not its strength but its weakness. It is the sign of a weak nation to keep raising taxes.

Think about it. I work my whole life. I pay taxes on my income. I save the money I have left. I buy a big house. I am a good steward of my money. When I die, my children would have to sell the house and give most of the money to the government if I happen to have accumulated too much stuff over my long lifetime (the very popular tax). The tax refunds I get from the government (stuff they were not supposed to take in the first place) is taxed again the next year as income. Taxing things once isn't good enough? We have to have a system where things are taxed two, three, four times?

There is a whole lot of deceit about tax cuts, as well. The Democrats, and by proxy the media who repeat the phrase, say "tax cuts for the rich." They, for whatever reason, want to raise taxes, so they use buzz words like "for the rich" to make their point. And then people ignorant of facts just repeat the phrase. How do they justify "for the rich"? I'll explain.

Someone with an income of 30k pays 25% in tax (I'm making numbers up to prove a point, but stick with me). Someone with an income of 500k pays 50% in tax. Let's say we cut taxes by 1%. The 30k income pays 24% instead and the 500k pays 49%. Because of the difference in income, the 500k guy keeps more money than the 30k guy ... even though the cut for them both is the same. Therefore, tax cuts "benefit the rich." They made more to begin with!

But that doesn't really matter, because liberals and their graduated income tax work on a pseudo-Robin Hood mentality. "We rob the rich and give to the poor." They come in on their donkeys to save the day, all the poor people. "Those rich are evil people and they don't deserve their money. We'll take it from them legally and give it to those who need it. Vote for us!"

The problem with this is that in Robin Hood, the evil rich people were the government. They were the ones oppressing through high taxes that the people couldn't bear. If we were true Robin Hoods, we would take that example by taking the money they've already taken from us and giving it back to the people who actually earned it.

And don't be fooled by this economic stimulus package by the Democratic Congress. They are giving you money. During an election year. You'll have to report that money as income (again ... you already reported it once, but you have to report it again when they give it back to you), and once the Democratic president raises taxes ... a lot ... you'll end up owing them more next year than they gave you this one.

So what is the solution for the Church? Well, biblically, we're just supposed to pay taxes. There are no biblical mandates for high or low taxes in the scripture, necessarily. So we are responsible for paying taxes.

And the Church shouldn't be concerned for itself, at least, about recessions or increased taxes. God will provide basic needs no matter what happens. Many don't believe that, in their heart, but He will.

But if the Church is to fight for the oppression of the poor, who do you think suffers more from economic crises? Looking back through history, of course the poor do. Should we willingly support a system that is inherently oppressive and dishonest? I don't know that its our job, as the Church, to fight either way, only that history and facts definitely don't dictate that I support such a system.

Peace.

Quotes of the Week 2.29.2008

2008-02-29T14:05:00.002-05:00

Finishing up February reading two books, The Pursuit of God by A.W. Tozer and Jesus Among Other Gods by Ravi Zacharias. Both have been good, but I've been enjoying Tozer a little more ... signs that the mystic is overcoming the apologist in my old age ...

So here are several quotes, some from each.

Pursuit of God by A.W. Tozer:

We Christians are in real danger of losing God amid the wonders of His Word. We have almost forgotten that God is a person and, as such, can be cultivated as any person can.

How tragic that we in this dark day have had our seeking done for us by our teachers.

The blessed ones who possess the kingdom are they who have repudiated every external thing and have rooted from their hearts all sense of possessing. These are the "poor in spirit."

There can be no doubt that this possessive clinging to things is one of the most harmful habits in the life. Because it is natural, it is rarely recognized for the evil that it is. But its outworkings are tragic.

Ransomed men need no longer pause in fear to enter the Holy of Holies. God wills that we should push on into His presence and live our whole lives there.

The world is perishing for the lack of the knowledge of God and the Church is famished for want of His presnence. The instant cure of most of our religious ills would be to enter the Presence in spiritual experience, to become suddenly aware that we are in God and God in us.

... the highest love of God is not intellectual, it is spiritual. God is Spirit and only the spirit of a man can know Him really.

God is so vastly wonderful, so utterly and completely delightful that He can, without any thing other than Himself, meet and overflow the deepest demands of our total nature, mysterious and deep as that nature is.

Promoting self under the guise of promoting Christ is currently so common as to excite little notice.

Jesus Among Other Gods by Ravi Zacharias

Truth by definition excludes.

Anyone who claims that all religions are the same betrays not only an ignorance of all religions but a caricatured view of even the best-known ones. Every religion at its core is exclusive.

Young dreams may be wild ones, but they are never corrected by ridiculing them.

Of all the enterprises in which the human heart engages, none lends itself more to abuse and manipulation than the activities of religion.

Sometimes religion can be the greatest roadblock to true spirituality.

Peace.

Cardboard Jesus #3

2008-02-29T12:17:00.000-05:00

I took Cardboard Jesus to a building with a steeple the other day. Some people there were trying to worship God. We sat in a pew, towards the back.

Cardboard Jesus had something to say, so I stood up and asked if he could interrupt and speak to everyone.

The ushers escorted us out. (I tried to tell him)

Peace.

Sharing Some Lyrics ...

2008-02-28T15:16:00.002-05:00

Not sure how much he meant it to be a Christian-type song, but God really touched me through this song Tuesday evening ... it came on the radio. If you've never heard it, it is an amazing song. Thought I would share the lyrics (not sure if they're exact ... Seal doesn't publish his lyrics for various reasons).

Love's Divine

Then the rainstorm came over me
And I felt my spirit break
I had lost all of my belief you see
And realized my mistake
But time threw a prayer to me
And all around me became still

I need love, love's divine
Please forgive me now I see that I've been blind
Give me love, love is what I need to help me know my name

Through the rainstorm came sanctuary
And I felt my spirit fly
I had found all of my reality
I realize what it takes

'Cause I need love, love's divine
Please forgive me now I see that I've been blind
Give me love, love is what I need to help me know my name

Oh I, don't bend (don't bend), don't break (don't break)
Show me how to live and promise me you won't forsake
'Cause love can help me know my name

Well I try to say there's nothing wrong
But inside I felt me lying all along
But the message here was plain to see
Believe me

'Cause I need love, love's divine
Please forgive me now I see that I've been blind
Give me love, love is what I need to help me know my name
Oh I, don't bend (don't bend), don't break (don't break)
Show me how to live and promise me you won't forsake
'Cause love can help me know my name

Love can help me know my name.

Peace

Disciplship According to the Karate Kid Part 7

2008-02-28T12:21:00.002-05:00

Miyagi has brought Daniel to the point where he can face his own conflicts with wisdom, pride, and skill. The chosen place for this conflict is the local tournament. Miyagi will not be participating, only an observer. When Daniel asks questions about the tournament, Miyagi shrugs and explains it is his first time, too.

The goal of the mentor is not to raise up a man or woman of God to fight the mentor's fight. This seems logical and common sense, but much of the modern Christian system is designed to teach people but keep them loyal to a group or a cause or movement. This is not what discipleship is for. A true leader or mentor in the Kingdom raises up leaders to follow God and God alone, wherever that may lead, but equips them to deal with whatever might happen, even if the mentor is ignorant of that next step him or herself.

Just as Daniel must fight his own fight, young men and women of God need to be discipled and left to truly, freely, be the disciples of Christ they were meant to be. But Daniel is not alone. Miyagi is with him, watching, coaching, encouraging the whole time. This is the mentor's, the father's, job. Sit on the sidelines and build up, encourage, let the young know you believe in them.

Daniel is rising through the ranks in the tournament. The evil master, John Kreese, tells one of his students to physically injure Daniel. They can't stop Daniel according to the rules, so they resort to and cheating.

Being symbolic of organized religion, I hope you can see where this is going. Those bound by organization and tradition are severely challenged and threatened by those who have been organically discipled. They see the power, the authority, that doesn't come from a class or seminary degree, and they lash out, usually verbally. And they teach others, those under their care, to do the same.

It hurts Miyagi to see Daniel injured, but Miyagi's attention is not in revenge or retaliation. He is concerned with his student and goes back into the locker room with Daniel. Daniel realizes how well he was doing and asks Miyagi to help him. Miyagi does his little trick and partially heals Daniel, giving him a boost that allows him to keep fighting.

Ah, this hits so close to home. When those organically discipled are wounded by those claiming Christ, they need the comfort and true example of fathers in the faith. True fathers in the faith, while compassionate towards those who have been under their care, show the peace and confidence of someone who does not resort to revenge or retaliation, despite how wrong others might be. And more importantly, mentors bandage disciples and send them back out with confidence.

You never want to see anyone you love hurt or wounded, but so often you cannot protect them from what they must face. The best thing to do is to encourage them to keep fighting. If you let them quit in these moments, if you let them rely too much on your protection, then they don't learn to truly manage their own conflict. They are still a child, not a man. Good fathers, despite the pain of seeing children wounded, send young men back out to fight the good fight.

Daniel then meets his nemesis, Johnny, at the championship match. Daniel, although wounded, still ends up in the lead. During a break, Kreese tells Johnny to "sweep the leg," injure Danile further. The look of horror on Johnny's face is telling: he has lost faith in his teacher, someone who would tell a student to stoop this low.

Evil is exposed for what it is. That is why mentors send men back out to fight the good fight. Those with approved character will shine while those bound will expose their . It is bound to happen in conflict. In reading stories and watching films on war, I have seen something important. Average men and women, generally, do things in war that they would otherwise never do. Some men do things so horrible that it is impossible to imagine one human being doing such a thing to another. Others, however, show capacity of such compassion that we are humbled at the sacrifice and selflessness.

I am not justifying war with these statements, only saying that during conflict, true character is revealed, righteous or wicked, and fathers in the faith realize this and long to see what the test reveals.

Daniel can only stand on one leg but still must face his opponent. His only option is the crane technique, a masterful technique Daniel could only awkwardly do before. But he remembers Miyagi saying, "if done correctly, no can defend." The battle is engaged, and Daniel wins.

For those organically discipled, masterful techniques are picked up naturally, spontaneously, but we must realize this is necessary. Without that intimate relationship, disciples never pick stuff like that up, never see the possibilities, and are more likely to fail when ultimate crisis comes. But God knows what we will need in the future and uses these spontaneous times to teach, to show, and he brings these things to remembrance later so that we can be victorious.

The whole place goes mad ... Daniel has won. He gets the trophy. Miyagi, while not hailed as the hero, looks on proudly. He doesn't need the accolades. Daniel's joy and victory satisfies him.

As it should all those who mentor or father in the faith. Another's success should be enough. That is reward enough.

Peace.

We Are Not Who We Should Be

2008-02-27T13:52:00.002-05:00

We are not who we should be
A people holy, righteous and free
Giving to all liberally
A tribe with whom sin has no place
The true measure of God's grace

We are not who we should be
Dying to love our enemy
Crying for the who cannot speak
Content with food and clothes alone
Longing for our heavenly home

We are not who we should be
Eager to share tales of how
God seeks to reconcile
Those who would believe, repent
So He would His wrath relent

We are not who we should be
Listening just to hear the Voice
Of Him who causes soul rejoice
Moving at His every whim
Finding joy in pleasing Him

We are not who we should be
Tested by a life of trial
Refined and cleansed by holy fire
Until we are bone of His bone
And flesh of His flesh alone

We are not who we should be
Loving those who live the Name
Because our Father is the same
Living in common unity
One big happy family

We are not who we should be
Wounds that heal at just a touch
Showing God is strength enough
Speaking words we cannot own
Because they come straight from the throne

We are not who we should be
Rejecting lives of luxury
So we can meet another's need
Resting in our God and King
Knowing we possess all things

We are not who we should be
Rich in love and hope and faith
Seasoned with mercy and with grace
Wanting just to make our case
With shameless light upon our face

We are not who we should be
Judges of an eternal realm
Where our Sovereign sits with peace and calm
Ruler over history
And even all that we can't see

We are not who we should be
Without God's endless, boundless love
I fear that we would have no hope
Of ever being the Bride He seeks
Holy, humble, pure and meek

We are not who we should be

Peace

Violence of Divorce

2008-02-26T14:30:00.003-05:00

"For the Lord God of Israel says that He s divorce, for it covers one's garment with violence," says the Lord of Hosts.
"Therefore take heed of your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously."
Malachi 2:16

Malachi is the last of the OT prophets, the last written word before the coming of John the Baptist. Malachi is dealing with a "backsliding" Judah some years after their return from exile. He deals with many issues in his short account: improper worship, marriage to foreign women, and the coming prophet that would herald a different messenger.

Malachi also targets divorce. In a very strong statement, he quotes God Himself as saying, "I hate divorce."

Now, those who desire to dismiss the God of the OT as mean, judgmental, and hateful will stop there and ignore the statement as not consistent with His love. Others who desire to use the scripture to justify their own self-appointment as the moral police will file this away as some type of law.

But those who seek to know God's heart as a God of love, even in the OT, will look deeper than law or ignorance. They will see an imporant principle that guides such a strong statement.

"For it covers one's garment with ."

God gives a reason for His hatred towards divorce: it is violent. Divorce is a violent act. Divorce wounds people deeply.

I don't have to give statistics. We've all seen it or, unfortunately, been a party to divorce in one way or another. The bitterness, betrayal, rejection, the lingering wounds that reveal themselves years later, they are all characteristic of a family split and struck by divorce. It is a violent thing emotionally and spiritually.

While divorce is allowed in many cases, even biblically, Jesus makes it clear that God only allows divorce because of the hardness of men's hearts. Sometimes divorce is the best choice, given the available alternatives, but it is never God's heart to see it, not because He's an absolute legalist devoid of feeling, but exactly because of His great compassion that hates to see such violence perpetrated on those He created for better.

Marriages have problems, dysfunctions, if you will. But divorce doesn't fix them -- it creates a whole new one. Too many justify a divorce because of problems within the marriage ... welcome to life! Just because someone comes down with bronchitis, I shouldn't advocate them in the head. God's goal is in healing, restoration, and wholeness, not further violence ... the Church's goal should be the same.

Too many people who claim to know Christ are guilty of this violence towards one another and their children. (The statistics are the same with those who attend "church" as with those who do not ... around 50% in America) Again, there are cases here or there where it is unavoidable, which is exactly why the scripture allows for it, but many are getting divorced becasue one or both are being incredibly selfish. The myriad of justifications given is just another way to justify violence.

So, what's the solution? First, leaders in the Body of Christ need to love people enough to stop being tolerant of such violence. Stand for what is right by teaching the truth of love ... love never fails, right?

Part of this teaching in the Body of Christ must center around challenging completely wrong perceptions of marriage, sex, and romance in the media. Monogagmous sex has been perverted by a pornographic entertainment culture that defines for men what it means to be sexy and for women what it means to be emotionally swept off her feet. Marriage is seen as transient at best, if not some ancient torture device devised to keep women and men from realizing their true humanity (defined many times as a purely instinctual animalistic nature).

Next, we must have more community and discipleship to give testimony to the truth we speak. Marriage classes are not enough. Books on marriage are not enough. Young couples need to see firsthand successful, loving marriages, and have relationship with those who have gone before them and come out the other side from these seasons of problems and issues, not perfect but still together and better than before, doing their best to love one another. People need to see that marriage and family is a BLESSING, not an obligation or prison or "ball and chain." Those are lies from the enemy.

There is a vast deficiency of these marraiges in the Church, not because it's not possible but because we've been deceived by adolescent romantic notions, the feminist movement, and segregationist mentalities among the Body of Christ. God seeks to raise up loving, long term, successful marriages and healing while the enemy seeks division and violence. Which will we stand for?

While they may be more rare than they should be, successful marriages do exist. They are around. Seek them out. Be humble enough to learn from them what a long-standing marriage entails instead of TV or movies. All ministry begins at home. I would rather be successful at my marriage and parenting than my career, my hobbies, or my "ministry." Neither the world nor the Church needs more preachers, prophets, teachers, or writers. We need fathers and men of character and marriages of healthy commitment.

Let's take heed of our spirits, that we do not deal treacherously.

Peace.

Random Thoughts

2008-02-26T14:27:00.002-05:00

To convince the poor that a glorified middle class standard of living is their right is just another way to oppress them.

A broken Church is better than a perfect state.

We do not give to the poor to become their provider; we give to the poor to teach them that, through giving and love rather than obligation and law, God is their provider.

Why do we serve the very gods Christ has made a mockery of?

Peace.

Sounding Off 2.25.2008 Gas Prices

2008-02-25T13:32:00.004-05:00

For the party races, McCain had to weather an attack on his character from the media last week. Not surprisingly, it came from the New York Times and had no basis in fact. But he'll be the conservative candidate so watch as any and everything the media can find will be put through their microscope to try to tear him down.

Hillary is getting more angry and it's really not working for her. Obama should win Texas and Ohio, and the only salvation Hillary will have is if she can somehow work the "superdelagates" to back her. Basically, the Democratic party has a number of delegates not tied to the desire of the people that has more power and influence than the ones chosen by actual voters. (By the way, this is anything but democratic, and if Obama wins the number of delegates but loses the superdelegates ... it's going to really expose this "ivory tower" class distinction in the Democratic Party.) Anyway, I don't think the superdelegates will go Hillary's way. Most of the biggies in the party are backing Obama anyway.

On to the issue for the day.

Everybody is worried about gas prices. They have gone up considerably in the last few years, but I'm actually not that worried. I'll begin with why.

I guess I have more of an international perspective. Most other places in the world pay at least twice what we do per gallon (they do the more logical liters, but it works out). Europe, Asia, they pay way more per gallon than we do. To make such a big deal about it is rather ethnocentric, especially considering that we still consume way more than anyone else does, despite our lower population.

And I know a little bit about economics. There is a principle of finding the "equilibrium price". Of course this is never achieved, but a truly free market is always trying to find it. We don't have many of those, especially with the oil industry (do some research as to how much the government controls that industry ... it will astound you), but the principle still works. Part of finding the equilibrium price has to do with the price people are willing to pay. While people complain about the gas prices, most still pay it.

And the equilibrium price isn't just American, either. There are billions of people around the world now with cars that deal with this, and that has compounded the problem.

Interestingly, the gas companies are being blamed for the high gas prices. They are making more money simply because there are more people buying and driving cars around the world. This is also an international perspective. Places like Korea, China, India, have greatly increased car ownership. These are some of the most populated areas of the world. That gives us a demand and supply problem.

Another issue is the taxes on gas. Even without including the untold billions gas companies have to pay before the gas gets to your local station (fees and other buried taxes lobbied by environmental groups, mainly), the federal average is 42 cents on the gallon, which is more than twice what the companies who worked their off actually get. Georgia has one of the lower rates (only Alaska is lower), so that's why when you cross the state lines, the gas prices shoot up another ten cents.

Part of the demand problem is the popularity of certain gas-guzzling vehicles that Americans, already the greatest consumer of oil in the world, purchase and enjoy. Remember, the supply hasn't really increased a whole lot over the past few years, but the demand has skyrocketed. Guess what will happen to prices? Way up, baby.

So what are the solutions? Well, I'll give you three.

First, cut some or all of the taxes on the oil companies. Cut the cost of the item and the final price will go down. I guarantee it. With Democratic Congress and probably a Democratic president, the taxes are more likely to increase, which will cause the price of gas to continue to rise, but we won't deal with that here.

Second, increase the supply. There are several oil fields in North America that are untouched for different reasons, most notably the recent crying by environmentalists that lobby for the local animal life. Not that I want to hurt animals, either, but it is another viable solution that won't get the attention it deserves because the environmentalists have the same Democratic Party in their pocket.

Third, decrease demand. Buy cars and vehicles with better gas mileage. Get a bike. Use it. Move closer to work and your fellowship. Carpool more with those you work and fellowship with. Find more local shops and businesses that meet needs instead of shopping further away because its all in one place. Since we still have the freedom to make these kinds of choices, lets use them. Being the highest consumer of oil in the world, we can make a difference no one else can.

For the Church, who should be more communal anyway, this should be our favorite option. Choose to be more local. Choose to do things that don't cost a lot of energy or distance. Carpool with one another to fellowships or even to work. This will give up some personal freedom, but what we get in exchange is more time with the Body of Christ.

In my view, the current taxes on the oil companies and the price at the pump is oppressive to people, all people (poor people don't pay less taxes on their gasoline, do they?). To suggest that Christians take a stand to tax these companies and products even more is ludicrous to me. We have a media that makes the point that the oil companies are making more "profit" while we are paying more per gallon. It is dishonest and deceiving, getting people to rally their anger towards punishing those "evil" oil companies while the government makes more money on the gas you buy than they do. Dishonesty and deception doesn't seem very Christian to me. I'll deal more with this when we get to taxes in general, but suffice it to say here that there is nothing about the gospel that requires me to support punishing a company for getting paid a profit for their work, or profiting more because more are buying their product.

Peace.

Quick Plug

2008-02-25T13:29:00.001-05:00

For Becca's blogs ... she does stuff with/for the kids on blogs ... it's actually more fun than mine ...

Micah - rasmooney.blogspot.com
Elisha - rasmooney2.blogspot.com

Peace.

Once Won Oscar for Best Musical

2008-02-25T13:25:00.000-05:00

Which is awesome ... but unfortunately it had to beat another great movie, Enchanted, to get the Oscar. They both deserved it. Choosing between them is really only a matter of taste: two completely different movies in style and scope but equally well done for what they were.

Peace.

Quick Sounding Off ...

2008-02-22T16:40:00.002-05:00

"In all, the companies that distribute, market and sell gasoline to the public took about 18 cents on each gallon of gas when the average price hit a peak of $3.07 a gallon on Sept. 5 in an Energy Department survey, analysts estimated. A year ago, they took 17 cents of each gallon, according to Energy Department data." (Washington Post)

In contrast, in cents per gallon, the national average of federal and state taxes on gas? 42 cents on the gallon.

Why don't we hear about the evil government making more in taxes than the people who actually work for it? Well, you just did.

Oh, by the way, the Fair Tax would make that gas cheaper.

Peace.

Cardboard Jesus #2

2008-02-22T13:30:00.003-05:00

I was snooping around the internet the other day, and I wanted to look at some .

I thought I heard somebody clear a throat behind me.

I slowly turned around and there he was: Cardboard Jesus.

Crap. That omnipresent thing gets me every time.

Peace.

Discipleship According to the Karate Kid Part 6

2008-02-22T13:02:00.002-05:00

Late one night, Daniel comes over to Miyagi's house and finds his master drunk and grieving. Daniel learns that night that Miyagi fought in WWII and had a wife who died in childbirth, losing his whole family while away at war. Daniel sees Miyagi's humanity, his weakness, his vulnerability, and Miyagi allows it. In the end, this brings Daniel into more intimacy with Miyagi, and he actually respects his master more.

One of the problems with mature Christians is that they think that because they still have their own issues, they aren't supposed to be put in any sort of leadership position. Or perhaps they are in a leadership position, whether by default or by intention, and therefore they seek to put on a facade of perfection and togetherness that is false. The danger of this is that it gives the young in Christ a false perception of what maturity is. Maturity in Christ is not the absence of problems or issues or weakness, but rather the greater wisdom in how to deal with them. This is exactly the wisdom that needs to get passed down, as others see these reactions and truths played out in real life conflicts and situations.

It is difficult to see our fathers as human, but it makes maturity all the more attainable. We have compounded this problem in the Church by placing our leaders in organized, isolated positions that necessitate a pedestal mentality. We need to see them as human. This is of the utmost importance in discipleship.

Those closest to Jesus saw him in his issues. They saw how he handled his nagging mom, his unbelieving brothers, his anger towards the religious, his struggle to give up his own life to the will of the father. They saw him weak in his humanity but victorious in his divinity. When I read Christ struggling to follow the will of his father, I am strangely comforted, because he still obeyed and was considered perfect and righteous. Therefore, I am allowed to be weak, to struggle, to look like less so Christ can be victorious in me through my obedience despite my weakness.

Paul also gloried in his weakness. Why? So that people could see that his ministry was only by the strength of God.

We need vulnerable leaders in the Body of Christ. Otherwise we will perpetuate a cycle of false maturity that does more harm than good.

Next we have Daniel's birthday. Miyagi gives him two presents. First, he gives Daniel a karate uniform with Miyagi's family logo on the back. Second, he gives Daniel his choice of classic cars in the yard. Of course Daniel picks the yellow one.

This is another important concept in discipleship. Intimacy between the mature and the learner results in a passing on of heritage and legacy. Timothy was forever shaped by the legacy he received from Paul. Paul was forever shaped by the legacy he received from Barnabas, and so on. You are family in a very real way. You have shared intimate things. Because of this spiritual relationship, spiritual legacies are passed on.

This is why discipleship is essential in the Body of Christ. We are not to only pass on knowledge and wisdom, but real spiritual authority and gift to handle that wisdom. That only happens through relationship, not classes or teaching, but through vulnerable individuals willing to humbly love one another.

Daniel is going to participate in a tournament. Miyagi gives him a uniform. Daniel is going on a date with a . Miyagi gives him a car. Miyagi not only endows Daniel with wisdom but real resources to have the balance the master is speaking of.

Spiritual legacies are passed down, giving resources to be the men and women of God he desires us to be. This is the goal of discipleship. This is it. Everything after and leading up to this has been secondary. Through discipleship we are given the wisdom and the resources to be mature. Next will come the test to see if we will use them properly.

Before Daniel goes on his date, he tells Miyagi, sitting in the car just given to him, "You're the best friend I ever had."
Miyagi hesitates and says, "You're pretty okay too."

You don't get that in a class.

Peace.

Reasons NOT to start a House Church

2008-02-21T12:20:00.002-05:00

(The following post is partially a reaction to my finishing Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna.

Those dudes read my blog.)

I remember when house churches were not cool. Oh, there were the few die-hards, many of them carry-overs from the 70's Jesus Movement, but by and large, house churches were conisdered with skepticism or just outright disdain.

I didn't know much about house chuches until I was in one ... and not really by my intention, either. I was invited to a "Bible study." It was not a Bible study. But I was disillusioned and discouraged with much of the Christian life I was around me, and I heard words like cold water to a dry pallette: "I don't care who you are, what your denominational background is, or where you come from. We're gonna love on Jesus tonight. If you're not okay with that, there's the door."

That's pretty much word for word.

I found a group of people who didn't care what I believed about speaking in tongues or who I voted for in the last election. They cared about the main stuff: loving God with our whole hearts and loving one another. They just happened to meet in a home.

I tried for years to take what I experienced in that living room to my fellowship and through my ministry to varying degrees of success. It took me a couple years before I finally committed my fellowship time completely to a little house filled with crazy people on Thursday nights.

This was a decade before Barna wrote Revolution and the term Emergent became cool ... kinda. I didn't care about that stuff then, still kinda don't; I knew I was loved, I was learning mounds of truth, I was allowed to ask scary questions, and I was unencumbered by all the religious crap ... another way to say free.

But when I stopped regularly attending a building with a steeple on it on Sunday morning, some were seriously worried about my spirituality. Some people seriously questioned my Christianity ... I'm sure some still do.

House churches, however, have kinda become cool. I tell people I fellowship with a couple house churches, and they say, "Cool," now instead of a long, semi-polite, "Oh ..." I also hear a lot about "my small group program at church" that they rarely attend but the pastor decided they needed one so its cool now.

(While small groups have a slight bit of potential, mainly they are different forms of Sunday School without much fruit ... which is one of the many reasons participation in most small group programs is poor.)

As my limited knowledge grew, I realized that others haven't had the same positive experiences with house churches, explaining some skepticism of many.

This could be its own series, but I will quickly try to run down reasons NOT to start a house church, or not to start going to one ...

1. You think it's cool -- it's a new fad.
2. You're gonna try to do everything an institutional church does, only in a house.
3. You think meeting in a house is more spiritual, like some magic church formula.
4. Your current fellowship kicked you out (which I guess makes them not your current fellowship anymore).
5. Your current fellowship isn't giving you the pulpit you think you deserve, and you've got things to say!
6. You just want to start another meeting.
7. You think your ideas are really the one, true, Church.
8. You think it's easy.

House (simple, organic, whatever, etc) churches can be an important step to realizing more community, fellowship and discipleship, but it is not an end in and of itself. You haven't accomplished anything by starting to meet in a home. In fact, if that is your mentality, you're doing more harm than good because you haven't actually changed your thinking, just where you think it.

Peace.

Quotes of the Week 2.21.2008

2008-02-21T10:34:00.005-05:00

I read Enemy at the Gates: the Battle for Stalingrad by William Craig this week. I picked it up at a used bookstore years ago because I really liked the movie. The book is totally different. The whole sniper story is cool, but it took like five or ten whole pages in this 400 page masterpiece. I couldn't put the book down ... but at times the stories were so tragic and horrendous I did want to put it down. The battle itself is an amazing story, but Craig did a beautiful job tracing the real life stories of real people through the six month ordeal. It is a history book, not a novel, but I've read my share of history books in my life and this one is one of the best. Some of these quotes are longer, but hopefully you'll get a taste of what I mean (I chose some of the less gruesome pieces ... you're welcome). The last one is my favorite.

p.327 [This is close to the end of the battle, as the Soviets were circling in around the German 6th Army and closing in] Southwest of Kotelnikovo, Sgt. Alexi Petrov spurred his gun crew on toward Rostov. The squat artilleryman had lost count of the times he had crossed and recrossed the twisting loops of the lower Don, but he ignored his exhaustion as he pursued an enemy who had held his family in bondage for more than a year.
In the midst of the offensive, however, Petrov met a new foe. Approaching the outskirts of a village, the inhabitants - men and women - ran out and attacked his unit with pitchforks and hammers. The Red Army troops withdrew from the onslaught and stumbled back with the news that their assailants were native Kazakhs, a minority violently opposed to Communist rule from Moscow.
The Kazakhs screamed insults and shoulted: "We don't want any Russians here!" while bewildered Soviet soldiers milled about on the plain. Someone phoned division headquarters for advice. Within minutes a terse order came back: "Destroy them all."
In the general ardment that followed, Petrov fired high e shells into the village, which blew into thousands of pieces of mud, clay, and timber. Machine guns picked off any who tried to escape, and the Kazakhs were killed to the last child.
Gazing at the crackling flames, Petrov suddenly wondered why these people had such a hatred for the state. What was it about Communism that made them turn against their brothers? He was plagued by a terrible guilt for killing his own brethren.

p.314 At an officers' mess inside the Kessel [the area in Stalingrad where the Germans were surrounded, cut off from supplies and near starvation], blond Lt. Hans Oettl was surrounded by men wishing him a happy birthday. Seated in front of his own blue china, from which he had eaten for years, he watched a cook ladle out a huge steaming portion of goulash filled with thick chunks of meat. Astounded and delighted, Oettl began to eat.
The door suddenly burst open and a military policeman stormed in, demanding to know whether anyone had seen his watchdog. In the sudden silence, Hans Oettl looked at his companions, now staring uncomfortably at the floor, then his gaze returned slowly to the goulash and mountain of meat in front of him.
While the policeman thundered threats against anyone who might have killed his pet, the lieutenant deliberately raised his fork and chewed a portion of the policeman's German Shepherd.

p.312 On New Year's Eve, discipline in the revitalized 62nd Army (Soviet) relaxed and, along the shore, high ranking Soviet officers held a series of parties to honor actors, musicians, and ballerinas visiting Stalingrad to entertain the troops. One of the troop members, violinist Mikhail Goldstein, stayed away and went instead to the trenches to perform another of his one-man concerts for the soldiers.
In all the war Goldstein had never seen a battlefield quite like Stalingrad: a city so utterly broken by bombs and artillery, cluttered with skeletons of hundreds of horses, picked clean by the starving enemy. And always there were the grim police of the Russian NKVD, standing between the front line and the Volga [the river through Stalingrad], checking soldiers' papers and suspected deserters .
The horrible battlefield shocked Goldstein and he played as he never played before, hour after hour for men who obviously enjoyed his music. And while all German works had been banned by the Soviet government, Goldstein doubted that anny commissar would protest on New Year's Eve. The melodies he created drifted through the loudspeakers to the German trenches and the shooting suddenly ceased. In the eerie quiet, the music flowed from Goldstein's dipping bow.
When he finished, a hushed silence hung over the Russian soldiers. From another loudspeaker, in German territory, a voice broke the spell. In halting Russian it pleaded: "Play some more Bach. We won't shoot."
Goldstein picked up his violin and started a lively Bach Gavotte.

Peace.

Danger of Our Imaginations

2008-02-19T16:16:00.002-05:00

I was born with an overactive imagination. This not only drew me into worlds of fantasy, TV and voracious reading, but I even felt the need to crate my own tales and characters.

But at some point God began to convict me of certain things in relation to my imagination, things that were dangerous, and I've found that many suffer from the same traps.

First, my imagination is a tool, not an escape from reality. We have a culture that tells us that an escape from reality is healthy. As a result, we spend way too much time escaping from reality while very real relationships become deficient.

Second, I use my imagination to dwell too much in the past. I focus on things people have done or said that wounded me or offended me. I think of things I could have or should have said, things I could have done, and all it becomes is a way to my brothers/sisters in the Lord and others in general. This is not forgiving as I've been forgiven or loving another, keeping no record of wrong. This is a type of , as Jesus made the point that if you your brother in your heart, you've already ed him.

Another way to focus on the past is to revel in the good times. This leads to attempts to recreate the bygone days and criticize the current reality. I spend time lamenting how great life used to be and using my imagination to create a utopia that never existed -- the past had its own worries and problems, too.

I'm not against dealing with past issues or being thankful for the good times, but there is a delicate balance to these things. We can easily deteriorate into not living in the present reality and becoming overly critical.

Third, I use my imagination to conjure up situations that could happen and then extrapolate all these possibilities that stress me out or me off or depress me. But nothing has actually happened, though I still work up all this , bitterness, and anger towards people who have done little to nothing to me. Unfair judgment usually enters into this because I'm imagining what they would do based on what type of people I perceive them to be, which is usually not a loving perception.

I've had whole arguments with people in my head ... preached whole sermons ... and none of it ever existed except in my imagination. The Lord really dealt with me about this. This is not love and not a proper use of my mental time.

I'm not against planning ahead, either, but much of our planning actually creates anxiety based on false expectations, a myriad of things that are bound NOT to happen since they can't all happen at once ... the statistical probability is near to zero ... and yet, ironically, we do this to create some sort of stability and safety for ourselves, which is also false. This shows a lack of trust in God, who tells us clearly that we can make all the plans we want, He orders our steps and does what He wants. It takes a very mature person to plan ahead while maintaining their faith in God's propensity to do something totally different.

Either way, these past three issues steal our attention away from worshipping God and loving others. Which brings me to the final point:

Fourth, I can use my imagination to create a false image of God, which is idolatry. A.W. Tozer does a great job in his book, Knowledge of the Holy, visiting this issue. We attribute characteristics to God, both visual and theological, inconsistent with whom He actually is. We too easily accept people perceiving Christ their own "personal" way. We do this because our perceptions are based on our own flesh and intellect and not on revelation of God. Anything apart from the revelation of God leads to deception and idolatry. Even Bible study alone will lead to ruin, as many (like the Pharisees of Christ' day) have proven, if it is without the revelation of the Spirit of God. It is the spirit that has been given the task of the revelation of all truth. Nothing secondary will do. I must be enlightened. I cannot self-enlighten.

Scripture bears this true. Paul tells us we have weapons of the Spirit to cast down "imaginations and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." We are transformed by the renewing of our mind, literally thinking differently. Many accumulate mounds of information, even change doctrinal, theological, or political positions, yet they still think the same way; they just defend a different position. Information alone will not accomplish this. In fact, "knowledge puffs up," the Bible says. Pure information creates pride in our ability to accumulate knowledge, in our self, not trust in a Creator. While knowledge alone creates pride, revelation produces faith.

Imagination can be a powerful tool if used under the direction of the Spirit and spiritual wisdom. It can also be the source of very subtle attacks of the enemy. Do not be ignorant of his devices ...

Peace.

Random Thoughts 2.19.2008

2008-02-19T16:13:00.002-05:00

We show people our gifts but God cares more about character. Anybody can receive a gift. Not everyone can buffet their bodies enough to be a person of purity, integrity, authority, and love.

The more we seek a seat at the table of earthly government, the more we ignore our responsibility in the Kingdom of God.

Peace.

Sounding Off 2.18.2008 -- War in Iraq

2008-02-18T13:41:00.002-05:00

Not much going on in the nominee races ... McCain got Daddy Bush's endorsement and momentum is still in Obama's corner, so I thought I'd begin dealing with some issues here and there. Let me explain how this will go.

These will mainly be thoughts on the issues, possible solutions (or non-solutions), and the Church's role in the midst of it all, which can be tougher than you think. Today I'll begin with something I've waited a long time to dissect: the War in Iraq.

Back when the war started, I told my friends that I believed the war with Iraq was ill-advised. I believed that Hussein was an evil dictator and was horrendously oppressive and even dangerous, but I had my reasons for being supportive of the decision to go to war.

First of all, we had a major campaign still going (even today) in Afghanistan, publicly supported and rather successful. A war with Iraq would overextend us.

Second of all, we didn't have the backing of the UN. There were UN resolutions Hussein didn't abide by, but as usual, the UN did nothing but point fingers at Israel and anyone else but actually dealing with the problem. The UN is like a big, old, toothless bear that kinda whines more than growls. The UN is kinda like Canada ... me and my grandmother and a stick could pretty much take them, although they'd whine about it and call us fascist pigs. Nevertheless, the international community and the media love the UN and would find it hard to be supportive or even limit their incessant negative criticism of a country that has kept most of Europe from being unified and speaking German ... twice (that would be America). So I felt Bush would be fighting not only another conflict on foreign soil but would be fighting the free press on it as well.

Third, to get involved in Iraq, as we're seeing in Afghanistan, too, true modern victory is a commitment for a decade or more. And I feel that Bush was either unrealistic on this point or unwilling to make this commitment clear to the American people. You can't just remove a dictator and give democracy to a culture that has no experience with it and little desire to assimilate it. Florida has been part of the Republic for a couple centuries and they still can't get it right.

Before I go on, I have to mention that I believe that it is within the right of a nation to declare and participate in war. The government has a role to protect and ensure certain things, and sometimes war is involved in that.

But I probably would have voted with Obama against going to war, for the three reasons above. I feel our military would be overextended (always a tactical mistake), the war would be political death (Bush's approval has been dismal, mostly because of the War), and the American people weren't really ready for the kind of commitment it would take (obvious).

Also, as an aside, I feel our military is in too many places at once. This isn't our fault. Most of the countries where we still have bases, like Germany and Korea, will not let us get out of those agreements. It benefits them too much economically. They would be bankrupt if their socialist governments had to actually be responsible for fully protecting themselves. Of course many in America still desire to be the international police that we don't really need to be anymore, but some within the military would welcome a more domestic approach. We're still in transition from a Cold War mentality, and it takes bureaucracies longer to adjust than they should.

It is also unfair to paint Republicans as a war mongering group. First of all, most Democrats voted for the War in Iraq, too, and said the same statements, looking at the same evidence, that influenced Bush to move forward in the War. Not to mention that more Democrats have been responsible for major wars and blunders as well, throughout history. Woodrow Wilson (WWI), FDR (WWII), Harry Truman got us involved in the Korean War and a Republican, Eisenhower, ended it, JFK and Lyndon Johnson dedicated us to Vietnam and it took a Republican, Richard Nixon, to get us out of the conflict there. Although the current Republican party did come to power just before another war, the Civil War, with Abraham Lincoln.

And saying that Bush lied as a way of justifying a change in your position (for and then against the war) is a crock. That is name calling, a form of dishonest arguing and propaganda. At least Obama had the guts to be against it then.

So, hindsight is 20/20, as they say. So I thought it was a bad idea, then ... what about now?

The reality is that we have removed a dictator and inherited a nation who only knows rule by fear or an oppressive theocracy. There are three groups who hate one another and indefensible borders that allow a chaotic flow of people up to no good, mostly from Iran. This cannot be solved quickly or easily.

Not that there haven't been successes in Iraq. Despite the Vietnam-era type of reporting that goes on (daily, weekly, monthly death tolls and nothing of victories), things have improved in the infrastructure, things like clean water, health care, women's rights, education, among others.

Pulling out the troops now, or even within the near future, will probably send Iraq into a severe civil war, probably complicated by Iran's aggressive opportunism, where the casualties will skyrocket until another dictatorial power is established, however it would end up playing out. While the media will probably not post those casualty numbers (I mean, hey, they stopped a war, right? ... think Rwanda in the 90's), it will be horrific and our fault.

Our other choices are to stay there, hoping under the current situation that things can get better and we only have to babysit the Middle East for another five to ten years instead of longer (we've been in Korea and Germany for more than 50 years), or possibly hand the whole mess over to the UN, which they would probably take and make worse with their little blue hats and soldiers with no guns that just point and say, "hey, don't do that!" or just run off when a local militia starts killing innocent civilians. We could also hand it over to another country, but we've got the same problem. Who has the resources and experience to truly handle it and is also stupid enough to take this problem? It's kinda like trading Michael Vick during the dog killing scandal ... who wants that headache?

Either way, I'm not real happy with the choices, but it seems the least of the evils is to stay and clean it up ourselves. Americans can be truly creative and innovative when given the chance. One of my hopes for the next administration is that they will have a little more foresight and flexibility in the whole process. It's a slight hope, though. I'm not really counting on it.

Just as I feel a nation has the right to go to war, Christians many times have an obligation to not participate in one. I don't know if its our place to stop it or support it. The Church isn't really meant to be that political. But I do feel that an honest stand against war and violence is valid by those who claim to believe in the Jesus who desires us to love our enemies, whoever and wherever they may be. Just as I'm uncomfortable with Christians rallying to stop a war, I'm especially uncomfortable with Christians using their "pulpits" to support one. I'm all for praying for the troops ... but to be truly like Christ we should also pray for those who are out to kill our troops, for whatever reason. They are just as much in the image of God and recipients of His love. And on some level, we should be more willing to die for them than to kill them.

This is a longer one ... if you made it to the end, they won't all be this long, I don't think ...

Peace.

Cardboard Jesus #1

2008-02-15T17:01:00.003-05:00

I took Cardboard Jesus with me to a restaurant today. We sat across from each other, face to face. When the waiter came up, I said, "He'll have the fish and some wine ... no, wait ... just bring him some water ... oh, and do you have breadsticks?"

They kicked us out. They heard about how Jesus would multiply everything and give it away free. They were worried about losing business. Cardboard Jesus wasn't.

Peace.

Quote of the Week 2.15.2008

2008-02-15T16:57:00.002-05:00

Got this from a coworker today, her pastor, Jentezen Franklin, of Free Chapel, wrote some stuff on fasting I was reading and I liked this part ...

Victories are not won in public, but in private. Jesus, while being a very public figure, was actually a very private person. He did not pray in public nearly as much as he prayed in private.

Peace.

Serving a Schizophrenic God

2008-02-14T13:16:00.002-05:00

With the coming of Christ on the earth, much changed, most notably the covenant revelation. The New Covenant is based on faith and grace. The Old Covenant is based in Law.

But it is not God that has changed. Oh, we say it as a theological concept, "God is the same, yesterday, today and forever," but the question is do we live that way?

Many do not. Growing up, I knew much of the main stories of the Old Testament but was fairly ignorant of the rest. My concept of a God of love did not kosher with the God of the Old Testament. The God of the New Testament seemed so much more forgiving, tolerant, etc. I ignored the Old Testament for a decade or more. Oh, I would have told you that the whole Bible was the word of God and inerrant and whatever, but thre were large portions I wasn't even willing to read.

A few years ago I began to read more of the Old Testament, at the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Then I began reading it all the way through, chronologically. I realized some very important things.

First of all, there is a lot of connection between the principles of the Old and New Testaments. It is startling, actually. Many of Jesus' words were direct quotes from Deuteronomy, Isaiah and the Psalms. The Old Testament was the Scripture of John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, John, and Paul. They used the Old Testament to explain the New Covenant, so we can see a lot of God's heart there, too.

Second, the difference in the Covenants is infinite. The New Covenant is superior in every way to the Old Covenant. The New Covenant is spiritual and eternal. The Old is fleshly and of this world, as divine as it was, and therefore by nature inferior.

Third, the goals of the covenants are very similar. An obedient, righteous people (the Church), living to inhabit a promised land (eternity) and fighting for a nation (the Kingdom).

Fourth, and most importantly to this discussion, God is exactly the same. He punishes the wicked, has grace on those who repent, he forgives, loves, promises, expects obedience, all in both Testaments.

God is unfairly painted as wrathful in the Old Testament. He is amazingly kind to a people who constantly go astray, so badly that even the Gentile nations thought they were sinful and mocked them! He is merciful and patient over years and years of rebellion, despite a written law and constant warnings by prophets, which they summarily reject or just outright kill. He gives them opportunity after opportunity to repent, to change. they might for a while, but mostly they flatly refuse. Even still, God restores them even after exile, all because of His love and promise.

God is unfairly painted as a tolerant, merciful God in the New Testament. Jesus mentions hell, the gnashing of teeth, possibly more than the entire Old Testament. John, Jesus, Peter, Paul, James, all clearly indicate that the unrighteous have no hope. Several times Paul lists people who live immoral lives as outside of the Kingdom. Revelation alone has a greater level of condemnation and punishment than any Old Testament prophecy. False teachers, the immoral, the unrighteous, are all considered the enemies of God and more than deserving of his wrath.

Romans says to not forget the "goodness and severity of God."

Many picture God as this mean guy through centuries of revelation only to send Jesus and say, "Sorry! I was just playing the whole time! I don't really send calamities as judgment upon the wicked or expect you to be righteous and without sin. Fooled you! Here's my Son to kill so you can live the way you want and thank me for such a wonderful gift. Just watch Veggie Tales! You'll be fine!"

If you read the whole scripture, God is not that way at all. He is not severe one day and good the next. He is infinitely severe and good all at the same time. Our unwillingness to fear him in his severity means we do not want to know him at all, much less love him.

As a side note: "Perfect love casts out fear" is often taken out of context. The apostle John is clearly stating (if you read the whole chapter) that if we LOVE others perfectly, we will have no fear of the judgment of God, making love the highest standard from God's perspective. The opposite is also true, if we don't LOVE others perfectly, we will have fear of the judgment of God. There are other scriptures in the NT that expect us to have a fear of God: "Fear him who can kill the body and send the soul to hell", " work our your salvation with fear and trembling", to name a couple for you.

Peace.

Sounding Off 2.13.2008

2008-02-13T20:44:00.002-05:00

Quick observation:

Obama is really kicking butt ... he'll be the nominee ...

And something currently in his favor is if the writers get back to work soon. The writers on strike will be mostly young and liberal, hence more towards Obama ... and we may see more slams on Hillary in the media because of this, making fun of her and helping Obama in the long run ...

Just a thought.

Peace.

Discipleship According to the Karate Kid Part 5

2008-02-13T14:24:00.002-05:00

Now that Daniel has learned his place, he's ready to learn more about karate. His first question is, "When will I learn how to punch?" Miyagi answers him, "When you learn balance."

The growing Christian, once learning formative things about the journey, is ready to take on the world, at least in his or her own mind. A father in the faith, however, knows that it is not the extreme that will win the day, but balance.

We have to be careful here, because the Asian idea of balance isn't necessarily Christian. In many ways it is not. But to the degree that a Christian should be taught to put things in his life in the correct perspective, balance is important. Yes, the Kingdom of God is amazing and worth all of our effort ... but many times the Kingdom of God is worked out by loving our parents or spouses or children or coworkers. There is a balance here in life that is easily abandoned for the extreme if there is no wisdom to what is done. This balance and perspective will work a little differently for everyone, depending upong certain responsibilities and seasons of our lives.

But before we can go out and attack, we must have everything in our lives in our proper perspective. I'll give you a military example. Let's say that you see an enemy on the horizon. You gather your troops and leave your base undefended because you're so zealous to overwhelm and defeat the enemy. But while you're gone, a separate force comes from a different direction and takes your base, your camp, your refuge, and you actually lose more than you thought you were fighting for.

How many leaders and ministers, truly undiscipled but seminary trained, are great public speakers but their private lives are in shambles? Too many, which greatly saddens me, because these men and women were meant to be a great encouragement to the Body of Christ but in their zeal overcommitted themselves and forgot that ministry begins at home ... for everybody.

Balance.

With this in mind, Miyagi places Daniel into a situation where he must learn how to stay on his feet ... he takes Daniel to the ocean and makes him stand up to the waves while Miyagi watches. Again, this is real life stuff that Daniel must learn to handle, but its stuff he's able to handle, which Miyagi knows and is able to discern.

The point of discipleship, and teaching in general, is to challenge with situations where success is possible. So often young, zealous men of God are thrust into situations that they are not prepared for by those above them. This happens for different reasons. Leadership feels they need someone in that position, they want to capitalize on the energy and zeal of youth, whatever. But in the end, these young people are being set up for failure.

While Daniel is in the waves, Miyagi is practicing a technique on the beach. Daniel asks Miyagi later what the technique was. "Crane technique. Very difficult," Miyagi says. But Daniel wouldn't have seen this masterful technique if there hadn't been relationship, real genuine friendship. Later in the movie, we see Daniel practicing this technique on his own, awkwardly.

This is yet another example of teaching without really teaching. Just being in the presence of fathers in the faith gives hope of greater things to those being discipled! They can see sucessful marriages or families or even ministry and realize that such a thing is attainable. They don't read about it or see it in a movie. They actually know someone who did that. It gives believers hope and a goal, righteousness to imitate and be victors themselves. They may start at it awkwardly, but they know where their going. They've seen it before.

Walking back from the beach, Daniel learns more about where Miyagi learned his karate. "From father," Miyagi says.
"I thought he was a fisherman."
"Yes," Miyagi answers.
"You must have had some father," Daniel says.
"Yes," Miyagi answers.

Miyagi wasn't created in a vacuum, either. His father taught him, passed down this knowledge, and Miyagi is doing the same.

In an ideal world, we could all trace who discipled us back to the original source, Christ Himself. Because of the hardness of hearts and fruitless traditions of men, God's grace has had to fill in some gaps here and there. But God's heart is clear. Pass on not just what you know but who you are, and the next generation should do the same. Fathers in the faith weren't created in a vacuum. They were molded and shaped.

The other situation Miyagi places Daniel into is at the front of a boat, straddling the sides, practicing blocks while the boat rocks. Miyagi is fishing. Daniel here questions his training further, and Miyagi challenges him.
"Is that what you think, that karate is for fighting?"
Daniel pauses. "No. We learn karate so we won't have to fight."
"Ah, Daniel-san, Miyagi have hope for you."
Then he dumps Daniel into the water.

In the midst of challenge and growth there is encouragement and play. Friendship develops. These two men are doing more than participating in the passing on of karate. Character is being developed, intimacy is reached between these two men.

And as we will see in the next week, that is when the best discipleship happens.

Peace.

Random Thoughts

2008-02-12T17:03:00.001-05:00

Only those who don't know God question the effectiveness of prayer.

Modern social thought questions the right of a nation to make war but asserts and defends the right to kill the unborn.

We want to follow God but we don't want to change. No wonder the world sees us as hypocrites.

Peace.

Sounding Off 2.11.2008

2008-02-11T18:35:00.000-05:00

There were some major events last week. I'll recap.

My very safe predictions were mostly right. McCain won Super Tuesday running away as Huckabee and Romney split the conservative vote. Huckabee made a serious play in the south, unwisely playing to his evangelical roots, and Romney made a great speech and bowed out.

Clinton is still ahead on delegates, but Obama technically won Super Tuesday. Clinton is reeling like Clubber Lang at the end of Rocky III and has replaced her campaign manager. Just picture Clinton going, "Hngg! Hngg! Argh!!!" and Obama going, "You ain't so bad! You ain't so bad!" It's getting rough out there, and current momentum goes to Obama. Unless Clinton pulls it around, which she is capable of doing among the Democrats especially, the candidacy is going to Obama. He's really on a roll.

Some thoughts on the Republican race: Now that Romney is out, the conservatives are really rallying around Huckabee. Most people I know that are voting for Huckabee are voting for two reasons. First, he's a Christian. I'll deal with that in a moment. Second, he's for the fair tax.

I don't have a specific problem with Huckabee per se, but he has been way more negative over the last couple weeks, especially against the other conservative, Romney. Huckabee has the potential to be the most likable of the candidates, but he's kinda playing too much to the Christian right; however it is working now, it could work against him in a general election.

And I'm tired of people railing against McCain. Sure he's more liberal than most Republicans on a few issues, but on others he is very conservative: he's strongly pro-life (by record) and he's consistent on the War in Iraq. He's soft on immigration and taxes, but you could say the same thing about Huckabee's record and stances, which means that people are choosing between the two men based on one's religious background and not on real issues.

Is Huckabee too behind to really catch up? I think he could make it interesting. It would be fairly historic to come back and even get close at this point. I'd kinda like to see it (I mean, I rooted for the Giants just because they were the underdog ... why not?).

Thoughts on the Democrats: As bad as it is that people are voting for Huckabee just because he's a Christian, its actually worse among the Democrats. African Americans are voting for Obama en masse and white women are doing the same for Hillary. Is this progressive independence? The party that supposedly champions civil rights is divided sharply along racial and gender lines? Doesn't surprise me at all, since I've believed for a while that Democrats are more racist in their own way than conservatives could ever be, but you would hope in 2008 that we could allow ourselves to vote for someone because we appreciate the issues and not because of surface characteristics. We're not supposed to let these things matter in hiring an employee (by law), but it can matter in a presidential election? Pretty sad.

The other main issue is that now that McCain is pulling ahead, he's becoming the target for both Democratic candidates and the liberal media. This could have the effect of generating enough good will between Obama and Clinton that it could be a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket in November. Will Obama forget the underhanded tricks and name calling for the good of the party? I wonder. He seems like he would have more integrity than that, but who knows. As much as I've studied history, politicians still amaze me at their willingness to be opportunists.

More primaries this week ... any predictions? I'll go ahead and step out and say that Huckabee continues to make ground quick and Obama sweeps another round of states, causing another bout of crying from Hillary.

Peace.

Quotes of the Week 2.08.2008

2008-02-08T16:49:00.000-05:00

Reading mostly fiction lately ... sticking with good ole Mum Theresa this week ...

True love causes pain.
Jesus, in order to give us the proof of his love, died on the cross.
A mother, in order to give birth to her baby, has to suffer.
If you really love one another, you will not be able to avoid making sacrifices.

The poor do not need our condescending attitude or our pity. They only need our love and our tenderness.

Someone once told me that not even for a million dollars would they touch a leper. I responded: "Neither would I. If it were the case of money, I would not even do it for two million. On the other hand, I do it gladly for the love of God."

I pay no attention to numbers; what matters is the people. I rely on one. There is only one: Jesus.

What we say does not matter, only what God says to souls through us.

Do not be afraid of loving to the point of sacrifice, until it hurts. Jesus' love for us led him to his death.

Peace.

Discipleship According the the Karate Kid Part 4

2008-02-07T15:31:00.000-05:00

The first night that Miyagi agrees to teach Daniel karate, he gives Daniel the first lesson: Karate is not in hands or hips, it is in your heart.

The first lesson in Christian discipleship is that the focus is not on what you do, but who you are. Doing what is right easily flows out of being the right kind of person. While we speak so much about grace and life, and say it's not about works, we then act as if it is exactly about works, mostly in traditions not even found in the scripture. The main goal of Christianity is to change the heart of the person so that the actions will change, as well. If there is no change of heart, actions can look similar but have no spirituality to them whatsoever.

Miyagi takes Daniel the next day out to the Cobra Kai dojo to confront the teacher and students at the school. Miyagi makes a deal with the school that they cannot fight with Daniel until the tournament, which Cobra Kai always wins. Essentially, Miyagi doesn't fight Daniel's battle for him, only postpones it until Daniel is properly trained.

This is another important step in true discipleship. So often young, zealous individuals are thrown to the wolves without an inch of discipleship. God desires a safe place where the young in Christ can be discipled, challenged. The conflict will be there later. First we need some training in what it means to be a Christian. Then we can be loosed on the world, so to speak.

Next we see that Daniel is brought to Miyagi's house. Miyagi has this whole other world that Daniel was totally ignorant of. He has a yard full of old classic cars. He has a Japanese style house. His back yard is an immaculate garden. Daniel sees that this man has character, individuality, has built things that took time, intention, endurance.

Fathers in the faith need these testimonies, too. They've lived lives of integrity and intention. They've built things, done things, that took time and commitment. They've been faithful with things. This is what it means to be a man of God, and the young need to see this in true fathers in the faith.

And here is where the training starts. Right after the "squished-grape" speech that I dealt with in the last installment, Miyagi gives Daniel a bucket and sponge and tells him to wash all the cars. Daniel washes all the cars.

Next, Miyagi tells Daniel to wax all the cars, one hand wax on in a circle, other hand wax off in a circle. Daniel waxes the cars.

Daniel spends the next week or so following Miyagi's direction (he committed to doing whatever Miyagi said). After waxing the cars he paints the fence, paints the house, then sands the wooden floor of the garden in the back yard, each time with specific instructions on method and form and an occasional "good job" by Miyagi.

This is one of the most famous parts of the movie. Miyagi comes home one night and Daniel is upset. He feels neglected, used. He isn't learning karate, he's working on all of Miyagi's stuff!

In a brilliant scene, it all comes together. First Miyagi has to heal Daniel because Daniel is too sore to move his arm. Now he can move his arm. Miyagi says, "Show me wax the car." Daniel begins to go through the motions and Miyagi firmly says, "Show me wax the car!" Each activity was designed to show Daniel an important method of defense and blocking the attack of the enemy, different punches and kicks. Daniel is amazed as it all comes together. He's been learning things he didn't know he was learning.

Do you see what Miyagi did to him? He made Daniel a servant first. He put Daniel in a position of servitude to teach him through seemingly meaningless tasks. But those seemingly meaningless tasks actually taught him how to defend against any attack.

This is huge. The first thing a disciple needs to learn how to do, after the commitment, is to serve. If someone in the Body is not willing to humble himself and serve, he is not ready to become like Christ.

Think about it. Jesus came from the right hand of God, was born in a cave with animals, was obedient to his parents, and suffered at the hands of evil men, all the while serving many who would end up calling for his crucifixion. This is humility and service. What did Jesus do before his to teach the twelve about leadership? He took on the place of a slave and washed their feet. The Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve.

And the first seven that were called forward for leadership during a crisis in the Church in Acts, what did they do, filled with the Holy Spirit? Served bread to widows.

The first step in spiritual maturity is not seminary-type education but learning how to be humble and serve. If you're not willing to serve, we don't need to disciple you.

Of course this gets frustrating. It seems useless, worthless, meaningless. But look what it teaches! This humility and this heart of a servant teaches us how to defend against any attack of the enemy. Most of the armor of God Paul describes is purely defensive.

Humility and service change who we are. Miyagi was changing Daniel's heart with mindless work so that Daniel would learn karate from the right perspective. The Christian must learn service and humility, a true changed heart, the absence of selfish pride and the flesh that wants its own desires met at a whim, so that we can learn to actually follow the God we say we believe in, because that's who he is.

So if you're in a seemingly meaningless season in your life, you're not alone. God is teaching you important things through the midst of it. Just ask Joseph in prison or Moses tending sheep for forty years. God teaches in the midst of the mundane. Fathers in the faith should teach Christians that the most useful skill in the Kingdom is not to read the latest book by the latest guru but to hear the voice of God in the midst of the mundane, to have faith that God is doing a good work despite the meaninglessness of it.

Because then the training can continue. More basics need to be learned.

Peace.

Quick Funny ...

2008-02-07T15:20:00.000-05:00

Becca made a quick funny last night as we were driving home ...

She suggested an audio Bible read by Howard Cosell ...

If they had Christian bookstores back in the '70's, it would have happened.

Peace.

Evangelicals -- An Easy Target

2008-02-06T14:58:00.001-05:00

Early on in my Christian walk, I refused to consider myself an evangelical. This was not being anti-evangelical on my part, more anti-labeling in my zeal. Most of my beliefs were strictly evangelical at the time, but even at a young age I felt such terms were more divisive within the Body of Christ and shied away from them.

As time went on and my beliefs evolved more into a strict biblical view, I moved away from strict evangelical teaching to ... well, something else I have no words to define and wouldn't even want to. I was "emergent" before they decided to label it, and in order to be consistent, I'm not too fond of that label either.

As much as I have come to disagree with some evangelical doctrine, I am extremely appreciateive of the truth I learned as I was raised in the Lord within the evangelical realm. I was taught basics of scripture and salvation, interpretation and growth. I was taught to love and encourage and serve. Not that evangelicals have the corner on the market in these areas, but this is where I learned them and I have attempted in my life, despite my passions, to honor those to whom honor is due. Just because my beliefs have evolved, revolutionized, or I've become disenfranchised with the system as a whole does not negate the truths they do teach nor the perspective they hold on all things.

Of course, as I challenge some of their beliefs, evangelicals (and others) feel threatened or attacked personally because much of their identity is tied to these things. My challenge is not one-sided, however; I find places in many of the labels and groups that are threatened by truth.

My intention is not to attack any person. As I advocate certain truths, I understand there will be criticism or even personal attacks in return, but I have done my best to never attack a person by name, especially those who are Christians. You'll notice, as I write or speak, that I try not to mention people by name as I point out the wrong or criticize. I do this because my fight is not with a man and I'm not to "judge another man's servant." But there are two more reasons.

First, if I don't know the man (or woman), how can I make personal judgments upon them? I might vehemently disagree with things that they stand for, but I don't know the person. I have no relationship with that person, so certain judgments are off-limits because its not my place.

Second, if I do know them, then is it love to publicly air their dirty laundry? If I know then and have an issue with them, then a public forum is not the place. If I don't have the balls to confront them personally, I need to keep my mouth shut.

But I am responsible, I believe, to stand for truth and what is right, what God has shown me "on the mountain." It has been my experience that people usually either are willing to concede I might have a point or they condemn themselves with their own violent reaction.

Most evangelicals I know are good people. They are kind and compassionate and desire some degree of truth. They want to live lives of integrity and responsibility. There are evangelical missionaries really trying to either recreate the box or get rid of it altogether in order to reach the lost in love. Several evangelical organizations raise tons of money to distribute material help worldwide.

If it is love to "hope all things," is it love to write them off because of my disagreement on some issues, however major they or I consider them to be? I don't think so. I heard a wise man say a couple things. "People do what they do because they see what they see." Jesus knew some had ears to hear and others did not. It is up to God's revelation to change, not my passionate intellectual appeals.

He also said, "Love them, but don't put on their chains." This can be a difficult balance, but whoever said love was easy? Nothing rewarding ever is.

And my lobbing insults or attacks at people or groups is just as violent as tossing a grenade.

Peace.

Random Thoughts 2.06.2008

2008-02-06T14:56:00.000-05:00

I don't know if the American Church can ever truly move forward in love until we're willing to give up what we want for someone else's need.

There is more biblical support for Christians visiting those in prison that being responsible for putting them there.

Only God can take a life that is but a breath and make it sing for eternity.

Peace.

Discipleship According to the Karate Kid #3

2008-02-05T17:10:00.000-05:00

Sorry I kinda took a week off last week from this ...

Daniel goes to a dance to see the he's been pursuing, and somewhat failing. Daniel is encouraged to go from Mr. Miyagi, whom he has become friends with. He decides during this dance to take advantage of a situation where Johnny, his nemesis, is rolling a doobie in the bathroom. In a typical 80's type morality play, Daniel is the instrument of saying no to by spraying Johnny with water. (In a nice piece of writing, Daniel's costume is a shower)

Of course, this is the wrong place and time to take revenge, not to mention that revenge is the last thing that should be on his mind. Daniel thinks he's responsible for making sure Johnny gets what's coming to him. The response is predictable. Johnny and his Cobra Kai cohorts run Daniel down just as he reaches the apartment complex. They begin to beat him up ... again. They are even close to him, relying on their teacher's "no mercy" attitude, but Mr. Miyagi saves the day, intervening at a pivotal moment and using his karate skills to beat off the young bullies.

Daniel finds himself attended to by Miyagi. Of course the subject comes up ... you know Karate? Why didn't you tell me?
You never asked.
Will you teach me?

Miyagi attempts to discourage Daniel, but he ultimately agrees to teach him karate.

While it may not need to be this dramatic, seekers need to see some sort of testimony that shows them the power and authority in the life of a man of God. Jesus performed miracles that attested to his authority. Paul counts signs and wonders as things that commonly accompany apostles, not to mention his insistence at working for his own support as evidence of his "fatherhood" in the faith.

And the hesitancy by men of God to disciple others can be good or bad. On the one hand, the flesh knows that this is a big task and feels inadequate. The enemy manipulates this feeling of inadequacy to isolate and paralyze men of God. This would be the bad.

But the good is important, too. Discipleship requires much from the disciple as well as the teacher. And the teacher generally has more idea of what it will cost than the student. The teacher got there once. The student has no clue in many instances.

Even Jesus made it difficult to follow Him, whether by word, deed, or standard. He wasn't being mean. This was love. Are you willing to give up your old life to have the new? Count the cost.

Miyagi explains this the next morning when they get started. Miyagi explains that karate is involved in all of life. "Karate do yes or karate do no. Karate do maybe? Squish like grape. You understand?" Then they make a covenant, a pact. Miyagi is teacher. Daniel is student. Whatever Miyagi says, Daniel will do. Daniel realizes this is important and serious. Probably not to the degree of reality, but it's a start.

This is so huge, that I will explain and end today here.

So much of our American or Western culture assumes a lack of commitment. We "try stuff out" and then see how it goes. This is inherent in our attitude about dating, schools, jobs, careers, even marriages and family. We might speak some level of commitment, but the actual commitment is glaringly absent.

We do this with fellowships and even Christianity itself! We try to get people to "try" our fellowship or a meeting or a community. No pressure. Just "try" it. See if you like it. We do it with the relationship with God. "Taste and see that He is good." This leads to the newest traditions of gross entertainment and activity in order to attract people to some level of commitment.

When are we going to grow up enough and become fathers enough in the faith that we treat salvation and fellowship seriously? You're either in or out. This has to do with your WHOLE life. If you play around with this thing, you will be destroyed. This is the attitude of God, the attitude of the New Testament, but we have perverted it to cater to our own laziness and lack of maturity. We call our lack of commitment to either Christ or His people as "freedom." This greatly disappoints God, who asks for our all and nothing less.

Jesus clearly demanded that all be given. Putting your hand to the plow and looking back disqualifies you. An unwillingness to give all you have to those in need disqualifies you. In Revelation, we have the Miyagi-esque statement, "I wish you were either cold or hot. I will spit lukewarm out of my mouth."

Either we believe these things or the scripture is wrong. Let me be clear. Discipleship is not something that will happen once we sit back and see if we like it. We must be committed to it, be willing to rearrange our whole lives around a disciplined relationship with fathers in the faith. Anything less is dangerous, according to the Bible. And the danger is clearly rejection by Christ Himself, however that challenges your theology or doctrine, it is what is said.

Daniel is made to have this type of commitment. It will change his whole life, rearrange his whole existence. He nods his head in zeal and partial understanding. His ignorance is about to be tested.

Peace.

Sounding Off 2.04.2008 Super Tuesday

2008-02-04T15:22:00.000-05:00

Tomorrow a lot of things will be decided. No guarantee that we'll have two distict candidates and that the parties will get behind them, but it is likely. I wanted to make a couple predictions, just for fun. We'll see how I do.

I'll start with the Democrats. This could get interesting. Obama has been surging again, and some states are really on the verge of being his. Edwards backing out of the race might be helping Obama, especially in some states where Hillary's hold is a little shaky. My prediction, however, is that Hillary will end up barely getting the nomination. This won't be the best choice for the Democrats, but I don't have much confidence in the Democratic ability to choose a candidate at this point (even though he won, I didn't think Bill Clinton was the best choice for president. In '92, there was a Democrat, Paul Tsongas, that might have actually gotten my vote, but he didn't mess around with enough women to get the press he needed).

The interesting thing will be, if I'm right, who does Hillary choose for VP? Will Obama forget being called a Nazi and bow to the will of the party? I feel he'll lose the respect of a lot of independents if he does that at this point. Edwards is in the same position. My money is on Bill for VP if Hillary can't get Obama or Edwards to sign on, although that's still a longshot. There are plenty of opportunists in the Democratic party who will sign on at that point.

For the Republicans, there are a lot of conservative states that Romney could still win. Huckabee is losing ground and will continue to lose ground as he caters to his evangelical roots and attacks the only other mildly conservative voice as a front runner, Mitt Romney. Romney and Huckabee are splitting the conservative votes right now (Huckabee is getting the social right and Romney is getting the economic right). If Huckabee stays in the race, which he's pretty determined to do, then I'm predicting McCain as the Republican nominee, although I'm not convinced McCain is the best choice for them, either. He's not conservative enough to unify the party.

The only way McCain wins in a general election is if Hillary is the Democratic nominee. Obama has hit the nail on the head when he stated that Hillary would unify the Republican and conservative base like no other candidate. Moderate and more liberal Republicans might give Obama a shot. Hillary? No way.

I think a great presidential race would be between Obama and Romney, if only for the fact that they both are well spoken, intelligent people who support their platforms well and run more positive campaigns. It would be close, but at least it would be less Springer and more substantive.

But my predictions going into Super Tuesday is Hillary and McCain.

Peace.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit -- Conclusions and Questions

2008-02-04T14:47:00.000-05:00

What I have shared briefly leads me to the following conclusions:

1. The baptism of the Spirit is not necessary for salvation. People without the baptism of the Spirit were still considered "disciples" and "believers." This is an important distinction. Upon repentance, believers are given the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, making us brothers with Jesus and giving us the grace to live righteous lives. The baptism of the Spirit is not required for this.

2. The baptism of the Spirit is a separate experience, most notably for greater ministry. The evidence seems clear to me. There was the "baptism of John", which was the baptism of water symbolic of repentance and belief. The baptism of the Spirit was always a separate experience. And as we look at the symbol and shadow of the Levitical priest, being anointed was a necessary step before being allowed to go further into the ministry of the tabernacle/temple.

3. The baptism of the Spirit is accompanied by signs and wonders. Whether it be the speaking of different languages, prophesying or even the shaking of a building, no one was ever baptized by the Spirit without their knowledge. They may have not known what to call it, but the experience was real and extreme.

4. There is no formula. Some were baptized in the Spirit weeks after their belief, some years, some simultaneously at repentance, some were baptized in the Spirit even before being dunked in water. Sometimes it was done with the laying on of hands, sometimes not. It wasn't followed as cut and dry as many today seem to desire. Some spoke in tongues, others did not, and in other cases it doesn't even say exactly what happened. To try to follow some type of formula with this would be unwise.

5. The experience isn't the goal. The apostles and ministers of the early Church were not pushing the baptism of the Spirit because they were attempting to give people goosebumps. They firmly believed that it would help the individual believer in their personal walk, greatly empower the gifts given by Christ to encourage the local community of believers, and increase the spread of the gospel. The experience, while valid, was secondary.

And so we come to a couple questions that many of you may be asking. I'll attempt to address some of it here.

What about water baptism? The question can easily be raised, if the baptism of the Spirit seems to be a focus of the ministry in Acts, what is the purpose of water baptism? Peter and Hebrews clearly states that baptism, as it was handed down from Jewish cleansing ritual, has no power in and of itself. The early Church obviously observed some form of baptism to signify the of the new believer to his old life and his resurrection to a new community of faith. The disciples were familiar with the ministry of John, and knowing the story of Christ's baptism, were somewhat loyal to the cause.

But Jesus never baptized anyone himself. Why is that? He allowed it during his earthly ministry, but I would have to suppose that he regarded his baptism of Spirit-fire as more important, or at least reserved for him alone.

So to be consistent with scripture, baptism was a common observance within the early Church, and they saw it as still part of their ministry. So those that feel strongly about water baptism have some support from the New Testament, obviously, even apart from the baptism of the Spirit.

What do I do now? The question could be raised, assuming that you believe what I'm saying, or at least are open to the baptism of the Spirit, and have never had the experience. Maybe you also greatly desire it. I would suggest a few things.

First, talk to God about it. Don't just believe what I say, look up the scriptures. Pray to God about it. Let him know your desire for an anointing that will increase your ability to fight the enemy and give you more authority in the gift and calling from God. Meditate on it. Lift it up in prayer. Fast a couple days for it. Again, you are not seeking this out for the sake of the experience. This will empower you for greater ministry, but you also need to seriously consider that with this greater power comes greater responsibility and sharing in the burdens of God. This is no small thing to be taken lightly. It is a blessing, to be sure, but seek it out before the Lord soberly. The baptism of the Spirit changed Peter's personality, as it is expressed in scripture. God will call you to greater things, which will undoubtedly call you away from worldly things. Count the cost.

Second, talk to someone you trust about it, someone who has shown with their testimony that they know what the baptism of the Holy Spirit is and can give you some feedback. Do this carefully, however, because you should always go about talking with brothers or sisters with what I could call a "spirit-filter", checking to make sure that what they are saying lines up with the voice of God.

Third, ask someone who is obviously filled with the Spirit to lay hands on you and pray for you. Be vulnerable and ask for it in a gathering of saints. This is not a formula, but if God leads in this way, could be very powerful.

As in all things, love one another. It is not my motivation to make anyone feel pressured into doing anything. But I also feel like it is love to describe something that Jesus, Peter, and Paul felt was important enough to make an issue with different people at different points. If you disagree with me, please know my heart is to love and encourage the Body of Christ to be a greater testimony of the power of God, not to divide in any way.

Peace.

Quotes of the Week 2.01.2008

2008-02-01T15:04:00.000-05:00

More from Mother Theresa this week. Some are just too good.

Jesus comes to meet us. To welcome him, let us go to meet him.
He comes to us in the hungry, the , the lonely, the alcoholic, the addict, the , the street beggars.
He may come to you or me in a father who is alone, in a mother, in a brother, or in a sister.
If we reject them, if we do not go out to meet them, we reject Jesus himself.

The important thing is not to do a lot or to do everything. The important thing is to be ready for anything, at all times; to be convinced that when serving the poor, we really serve God.

Before judging the poor, we have to examine with sincerity our own conscience.

If abortion becomes legalized in rich countries, those countries truly are the poorest of the world.

The less we have, the more we give. Seems absurd, but it's the logic of love.

Peace.

Baptism of the Spirit Part 3 -- Acts of the Apostles

2008-02-01T14:45:00.000-05:00

In Acts 6, being "full of the Spirit" was one of the standards for new leaders. How did they recognize someone full of the Spirit? By some sort of fruit, as is taught in the rest of the New Testament. Stephen went on to do great signs and wonders.

Once the apostles come across a group of Samaritan believers, they have been "baptized in Jesus" but not the Spirit. What does that mean? There was obviously a distinction between water baptism and the baptism of the Spirit. They proceeded to lay hands on these people and imparted the Holy Spirit to them (Acts 8).

In Acts 9, Saul is converted and still needs to be "filled with the Spirit."

Peter goes to Cornelius' house in Acts 10, to speak to the Gentiles. The Holy Spirit falls, people speak in tongues, THEN they are baptized in water once it is clear to Peter that God had ordained the Gentiles. As Peter defends his speaking to the Gentiles (a major issue at the time), he remembers that there would be two separate baptisms, one of water and one of Spirit-fire (Acts 11).

In Acts 18, Apollos makes his entrance, and he is speaking of Christ and arguing that Jesus was the Messiah. But the Bible makes it clear that he only knew the "baptism of John." And then the way had to be more clearly explained to him. What was the baptism of John? Water baptism symbolizing repentance. Its not clear in this case, but definitely implies that the ministers at the time felt he needed more than the baptism of John.

In Acts 19, Paul comes across some disciples in Ephesus who had only the "baptism of John." He lays hands on them and baptizes them in the Holy Spirit. They proceed to speak in tongues and prophesy ... all of them (about twelve, I think it says).

Despite some teaching out there, the baptism of the Holy Spirit did not occur once at Pentecost. Why did it need to continue happening? I heard one intelligent teacher suggest that different nation groups needed to be baptized to be included in the Church. First of all, that doesn't square with the scripture. Once Gentiles, Samaritans, and Jews were baptized, why did the group in Ephesus need it? Second, if it were true, then wouldn't every new group we preach the gospel to need the baptism of the Spirit?

At some point, the early Church clearly made a distinction between the baptism of John (water baptism at the decision of repentance) and the baptism of the Holy Spirit as two separate events. And of course they would. Most, if not all, of the early disciples would have been baptized under John or one another during Jesus' ministry. Then they were given the Holy Spirit after the resurrection but still needed to wait for the anointing as a separate event. This is what they taught and lived.

Tomorrow I will conclude all this with some practical points to help us pull it all together.

Peace.

Random Thoughts 2.01.2008

2008-02-01T14:40:00.000-05:00

God teaches that righteousness leads to prosperity. Modern social thought presumes prosperity is necessary for righteousness.

When God causes our idols to fall on their face before Him, why do we set them up again?

Don't fight in armor that's not been tested. Don't let the enemy determine your strategy. The staff, sling, and stones were enough before. They will work again if you come in the name of the Lord.

An action carries with it a certain amount of risk. Risk of failure, criticism, even persecution, oppression, or . It is the rfear of this risk that keeps many Christians inactive or subservient to someone else's cause. This fear produces organization and bureacracy. Therefore, Timothy is told we have no spirit of fear but of power, love and sound mind. There is no reward for the soldier who will not fight, the farmer who will not plant, or the runner who will not race. Let them say and do what they will, call me what they will, but let them know I feared God over any other, whether by my word or deed.

Peace.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit Part 2 -- Christ

2008-01-31T15:19:00.000-05:00

As we finished up yesterday, I noted that John the Baptist, as the last in the line of the Old Testament type of prophets, prphesied something very important: "I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with Spirit-fire."

In other words, there was a different baptism coming through Christ. And while John was baptizing for repentance, what would this different baptism be for?

Christ exemplifies it when he goes, out of obedience, to be baptized by John. Let's look at a couple things about Christ as we peruse the event more closely. Why did Jesus need the baptism of repentance?

He didn't. Christ was to be both High Priest, the King, and Prophet, the Messiah prophesied through Isaiah, Jeremiah, and almost every Old Testament prophet, including some interesting passages from Nehemiah. John's father was a priest, from the priest class, so the baptism of Jesus was instead the passing on of the Levitical priesthood to Jesus, through John, at the baptism. (A nod to Saji for that piece of revelation)

But like the priests of the Old Covenant, Christ was also born with the nature of God, perfect. Why then did he need the anointing of the Holy Spirit?

Because he was being anointed for ministry. The torch, the fire, so to speak, was to be passed from the Levites through John unto Jesus. And in order to minister, Jesus was blessed by the anointing of the Holy Spirit.

(Some might quickly say, didn't Israel have a high priest? They also had a king, Herod, but we know Herod wasn't the anointed choice. Neither was the current High Priest. It is God who ordains and chooses, and of course God chose John through a miraculous birth, to be the last of the Old Covenant priest and prophet.)

Not to mention that, while they happened at once, they were two separate events. Jesus is dunked in water and then the Holy Spirit rests upon him. And this leads us to the second reason Christ needed to be "baptized in the Spirit", as an example for us, as the firstborn of many brethren. Many times through the New Testament, we are told that we should look to Christ as an example ("let this mind be in you," etc). If Jesus needed to have the anointing of the Holy Spirit before his ministry, don't we?

Important to remember, Jesus never baptized anyone in water. His disciples did, during his ministry, for repentance, but he never did. He knew he had a better baptism to pass on.

Moving on, Jesus gives the apostles the Holy Spirit after his resurrection, at the end of the Gospel of John. There were no tongues, no flames of fire, no preaching directly afterwards. This was a separate event from what happened on Pentecost.

At the end of Luke and the beginning of Acts (really the same long book if you put them together), we get the reason why they were to wait for the Holy Spirit, so they could be empowered unto the ministry God had prepared for them.

The day of Pentecost was a different experience, obviously. Jesus wasn't there in the flesh. People spoke in different languages, Peter boldly preached. There was a second experience that anointed them for what happens throughout their ministries.

And before I get to Acts tomorrow, let me quickly note a couple things. Don't ignore that while they waited for the Holy Spirit, they waited together, in love, in community, in one accord. They were in one accord before being anointed and sent. God is waiting for the Church today to do the same.

The second note is to notice the difference between the Peter of Luke (and the other Gospels) and the Peter of Acts. He is a different man. In the Gospels Peter looks like many Christians today, passionate but misguided, overzealous at the wrong times, prone to fear man and his own safety, denying His Lord. The Peter in Acts is a man of authority, stability, and boldness. He is markedly different after the anointing of the Holy Spirit on his life.

No wonder they made it an issue throughout the rest of Acts.

Peace.

Baptism of the Spirit Part 1 -- The Old Testament

2008-01-30T15:11:00.000-05:00

Everything important in the New Testament and the New Covenant has a type and a shadow in the Old. God is the same yesterday, today, and always. He wasn't some different God then than now. And we can see some symbols of the two separate baptisms in the Old Testament.

First of all, we have the two crossings by the nation of Israel. First they crossed the Red Sea on dry land, then they crossed the Jordan with Joshua. They are both important in the journey, but symbolize something very different.

The crossing of the Red Sea was miraculous, but it symbolized the repentance of a people pressing on away from Egypt and into a new life with God, and it occured under the direction of Moses, who while symbolic of Christ, is symbolic of Christ in the Law, which is why it has to do with repentance.

The second baptism was with Joshua (Jesus' actual name, Yeshua). One of the reasons Moses would never have led the nation of Israel into the promised land was because Moses was symbolic of the Old Covenant. As Paul discusses in Hebrews, the Old Covenant could never truly fulfill the promise, and so it took Joshua (Jesus) to take them into the Promised Land. The second baptism was also over the Jordan, and we can assume with some confidence this was the exact place where Jesus was baptized by John (more on that tomorrow). The baptism over the Jordan was also done by the presence of God housed in the Ark of the Covenant, symbolic of a greater baptism.

And the baptism of the Jordan was necessary not for repentance but to fulfill the promise, to go and fight for the land and drive out the current inhabitants.

Secondly, the priests themselves had to go through a type of second baptism. Priests were born priests (only Levites and even certain families within them were allowed to minister to the Lord), so they were already ordained by physical right. But in order to carry out the ministry they were born to do, they had to be anointed by oil. You'll see more the connection tomorrow.

The tabernacle was built in the wilderness, and the sacrifice was prepared. Remember, we are the temple of the Holy Spirit, and repentance is our sacrifice through the of Christ. But the first sacrifice was not burnt by the priests but by God Himself, consumed with fire from heaven.

And last, but not least, we have Elijah before the priests of Baal. He pours water over the sacrifice three times (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), but it is God who must validate the sacrifice with fire from heaven. Two baptisms.

So as we finish up the time of the prophets, John the Baptist makes his declaration about Christ, "I baptize with water, but He will baptize with Spirit and with fire." That could also be translated "Spirit-fire."

We'll see how Christ was the fulfillment of that tomorrow.

Peace.

Baptism of the Spirit Intro

2008-01-30T14:47:00.000-05:00

This topic has come up recently and I wanted to put a little teaching up here on the blog for those interested in pursuing this more.

As I've mentioned before, I was raised in a very conservative, evangelical fellowship, so the baptism of the Holy Spirit wasn't ever really discussed unless we were making fun of those pesky Charismatics or Pentecostals. I got older and knew some of these brothers on my own and went to their meetings, and what I saw never really convinced me that there was more to it than I had previously believed. In fact, most of the charismatic meetings I attended only confirmed my convictions.

Time went on, and I would say that the division between the two groups, charismatic and evangelical, discouraged me more than any other since it hinged on something like speaking in tongues for both groups. It was honestly one of the major reasons for backing out of fellowship altogether for a while.

Then I met Larry Trammell, where a lot of things changed for me, mostly because I found someone I could relate to who didn't make minor things major things. He cared most whether or not I loved God and worshipped Him and loved others. He was truly non-denominational, unlike most who attempt that moniker, even though some things that happend in those meetings at his home would be considered charismatic (although I've learned that much of the freedom he taught even stretches that group in its own way).

Over the course of the years before I met Larry Trammell, I was prayed over at various times to be "filled with the Spirit." I was an open minded young guy, and I was ready for whatever, but nothing ever really happened. It wasn't until one Tuesday night at the Trammells that someone laid hands on me, prophesied and something really happened. I didn't speak in tongues, but the feeling was unmistakable. Something happened. Something was different. My reaction was yelling out in joy a few times, if you're curious at all.

So as I get into this, I know that there are those who are strictly against anything to do with this teaching. I understand. I was once there, too. No judgment on my part. Just skip the rest of the series. There are others who know intimately what I'll be teaching on and have their own experiences. Leave a little story or something in the comments if you feel so led.

There are others that are possibly just curious and open to whatever God really has, regardless of how they were raised or taught before. Read what I say checking on the scriptures and the witness of the Spirit inside you already. You'll be led correctly, I have no doubt.

Before I get into it, let me say that I know this has the potential to be controversial to some, and I am so thankful that I am a part of fellowships that have not made this an issue or doctrine to be "in" or "out." Those with more conservative evangelical pasts and those with more charismatic pasts have just loved one another and received the gifts from each other that are already there without judment. Just as Larry Trammell blessed me fourteen years ago, you would have done the same if a frustrated young man with long hair had graced your door.

Peace.

Sounding Off -- More thoughts on the Race 1.29.2008

2008-01-29T18:10:00.000-05:00

Both Democrat and Republican races are getting more nasty.

Obama and Hillary are really firing off at one another. Obama made it interesting again in South Carolina. Romney and McCain are also trying to put one another down more than point out the policy differences between each other. McCain and Hillary (and Bill) are the instigators, mainly, but the other sides, Obama and Romney, are letting themselves get sucked into it.

Obama even got the Kennedy to support him. More of the old guard are going Obama, knowing he has a better chance against the Republicans. What does that say about Hillary? At this point she is more likely to win the nomination. That could be problematic for the Democrats.

It is becoming more and more apparent that a vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill Clinton, and that is angering the old guard among the Democrats. They want him to just shut up and get out of the whole thing, but he won't. If Hillary gets the nomination, the Clintons are more likely to pull a Democrat and lose a very winnable election for them. Everything Bill says is a headline while Hillary's positions and comments receive less press. That is problematic for the Democrats.

The AJC has revealed how liberal and racist they truly are, just going to prove that liberals are more racist than conservatives ever hope to be because they always just get away with it because they attack popular targets (white, evangelical, rural) or advance liberal generalizations about minorities (they all vote Democrat, don't you know!). The AJC, in attempting to analyze the four Republican top dogs for the nomination, actually used the phrase "NASCAR dads" as a voting group. If Fox News (not really conservative ... they just don't pander to the liberal worship of certain things) or a conservative talk show guy or any Republican candidate used a similar term to talk about any minority group in a Democratic contest, we would see the story we haven't seen since "nappy-headed hos."

The President gave his State of the Union the other night, and I'd like to mention a factor in the election that I haven't heard considered. What if, despite the media universal campaign to the contrary, Bush's approval rating improves? Unlikely, I know, but what if he makes some significant changes or something happens that gets him good press? That would make a difference for the Republicans in the next election because he could use the bully pulpit that has become rather ineffective because of his low approval rating, one of the major agendas in constant, one-sided criticism from the left and most of the media.

I'm still compiling a list of issues that I will discuss over the coming weeks. Any suggestions? I've got a good list now, but maybe you will bring up something I haven't thought of.

Peace.

Counting the Homeless

2008-01-29T17:28:00.000-05:00

Got up early on Monday morning, Jan 28, to help the Gwinnett Coalition to count the homeless in Gwinnett County. This was part of a larger effort across the state and nation to get a better handle on how to use federal funding. Some groups also hope to use these statistics to motivate a homeless shelter or other homeless ministries.

Read the AJC article here.

Seven guys associated with our house churches were there, out of the 75 total volunteers ... is it wrong to be proud of that? Probably.

There were eight of us, total, who knew each other, and we split up into two groups. I took one. My group went down the street to a couple places off of Indian Trail and looked back in the woods with flashlights since it was still dark.

The first place we looked was behind a Korean Church. The dumpsters made me think of Korea ... they smelled of old kimchee! We found a clearing in the woods where a reclining lawn chair had been set up and obviously used at some point recently. We found no one, of course, but that isn't surprising, as one of our group pointed out that if someone had been there, they would have bolted at seeing four men with flashlights rolling up on them, wearing reflective gear, especially if you were homeless.

The next spot we went looking and found another clearing where people obviously had been squatting. Trash from beer bottles and convenience store food were everywhere. Then we found a makeshift tent -- blue tarps over branches between two trees. It was all closed up. We couldn't see inside and my flashlight couldn't get in there. We called out, "We're not with the police. We're not going to hurt you or anything. We have food. We want to ask you a couple questions," things like that. We heard nothing in response. I eventually called out, "I'm opening the tent now, to see if someone's in here."

We heard a quick, "Okay, I'm coming out." Once he did, we asked him if he would take a survey to get more info on the homeless here in Gwinnett County. He was very nice and agreed. We talked with him for a few minutes, hearing his story. His name is Tee. We gave him food and prayed with him, encouraging him.

As we left, we ran into another group searching the same area, which was weird to me because I thought they only gave out the one location to each group ... anyway, we let them know what we had found, and they went back to their car.

(The AJC interviewed Tee, as well. Poor guy! We told him to keep warm and go back to sleep, and then the newspaper wakes him up. I hope we only counted him once. The picture in the Gwinnett section of the AJC was of his abode.)

Tee told us that there are no homeless shelters in Gwinnett County, which doesn't surprise me more than it just saddens me. He affirmed that there were a lot of homeless in the county, and they have nowhere to go. We asked him if he knew of any places, and he led us to a nearby Chevron.

We ran into our next homeless guy, who didn't look so homeless. We actually approached another man we thought was homeless, but he was adamant he lived in the apartments nearby. We saw him talking to this other man, David, who didn't look that bad off. But one of our group felt like giving them both some food, since we still had a lot left over. We were called over to talk to David. He was homeless after all.

As we began to talk to him, I said, "Don't be offended, but are you from Australia or New Zealand?"

He laughed and said, "I'm from Australia. The only way you would have offended me was to ask if I were Irish!"

I said, "Hey, I'm Irish ..."

Anyway, David was very nice, and we prayed with him as well. He told us of a place about a half a block away, behind a Texaco, where he knew of some homeless staying there. We made it over there and found another homeless man. David was his name, too. We gave him food, asked him questions, and prayed with him, too.

Australian David had also told us that there were no homeless shelters in Gwinnett County. When we got back in the car, the driver of our group turned to me and asked, "What does it take to start a homeless shelter?" I was thinking the exact same words!

After checking on the Korean Church location one last time, we returned to the Norcross Co-op, where we started. We were interviewed by the AJC and turned in our stuff.

Most of the people we talked to saw few homeless, so I don't know how successful the count really was. We should know next week, and I'll probably blog about it again then.

My favorite quote is included in the AJC article, though, about how Gwinnett has just spent millions on a new animal shelter, but we have no homeless shelter. I'm all for puppies and kitties, but I'm conservative enough to believe that humans are a little more important.

Gwinnett County is changing, as any community is always in some sort of flux or transition, and the homeless are here. But there is still this perception of Gwinnett as this bastion of suburbia, so therefore we can't have things like Marta and homeless shelters. But the homeless are a problem in Gwinnett and will continue to be a problem. Will a homeless shelter encourage more homeless to move into Gwinnett County? Well, it depends on how you do it, but it might. Isn't that an acceptable risk to helping feed and clothe those who need it? What is the alternative? We let people freeze to death in the woods, hungry and cold, so we don't have more of a homeless problem?

I'm not advocating the government take care of this. The government will spend twice as much with legal red tape what the Church can do with compassion. Part of the problem is that the individual assemblies in Gwinnett don't see their responsiblity to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. Many of them started assemblies in Gwinnett to get away from that kind of stuff. To give it over to the government isn't good for people. We would cease to see it as OUR job and continue in our suburban Christian blindness, griping about the taxes they use for "those people."

Instead, we should be teaching the Christians in Gwinnett County how the needy in Gwinnett County are their responsibility to reach out to out of compassion, to get over their worship of the suburban lifestyle and actually love someone.

At least 75 people had some vision of that Monday morning, and I'm sure that's only a percentage of what God is doing in hearts. And we weren't the only ones talking in their cars on the ride home about how they could help and how they could get involved or how they could start some sort of homeless shelter. I can guarantee that. I don't know if you can really believe in God, and see need like that, and not want to see compassion win out over comfort.

Which is why, despite some evidence to the contrary, I'm more confident in the compassion of the Church than the obligation of the government.

More later, I'm sure ...

Peace.

Discipleship According to the Karate Kid #2

2008-01-24T14:08:00.000-05:00

As the story begins, Daniel Larusso and his mother travel across the country from New Jersey to California. Daniel is fatherless due to his father's . Daniel took some karate in New Jersey.

At one point, as they are moving into their new apartment building, Daniel has his hands full and needs to open the wooden gate. He kicks the gate and injures an bystander who quickly forgives and even invites Daniel to a party. This scene establishes two things: Daniel's inadequacy and his need for a father/teacher. His hands are full and lashes out from his ignorance.

People who are seeking truth alone, or even undisciplined Christians, often do more harm than good, injuring others from their ignorance of the power of truth. They are misguided, and therefore the world can be more kind than undisciplined Christians.

Daniel not only has a new home, but he has a new school. He goes to the party on the beach to try to fit in, but he quickly comes into conflict with bigger, stronger kids. He tries to fight them and loses ... badly. He is unable to properly defend himself or deal with conflict at all. This causes more anger and frustration in his fatherless existence.

Seekers find themselves at similar crossroads. They are angry, frustrated, and they often don't know why. They try to assert their own independence, but their lives are filled instead with conflict and confusion.

Daniel goes to see the janitor of the apartment building to fix the sink in his apartment. Mr. Miyagi is the janitor, but he is busy with another task. Miyagi states that he will get it done. Daniel asks, "When?"
Miyagi says, "After."
Daniel says, "After what?"
Miyagi impatiently asserts, "After after."

In other words, Miyagi will not be moved from his task or make needless commitment. He is a man of his word. It will get done.

This frustrates the impatience of the young. But it is a thing they desperately need to learn. Too often the impatience of the young is sated to settle them down or keep them happy. Instead of being taught patience, we condescend to their weakness. Miyagi will not do this.

Daniel seeks out karate classes in town and discovers his nemesis and friends are big shots there at the dojo. This discourages Daniel, and he asserts that he will seek his teaching elsewhere.

Being disciplined in a wrong manner is just as abusive as not being disciplined at all, perhaps more. Often, those seeking out the Kingdom of God are disappointed to find that Christians are the mean kids with power and lord it over others. These young men were taught to be this way by the system and the doctrine of the teacher. His motto is, "no mercy, mercy is for the weak."

But Daniel is not so enlightened that he sees through this, either. He also sees karate as a way to win a fight or find social power. While Daniel is disappointed and discouraged from being taught karate, this doesn't assume his ideas are basically good. Seekers also have this problem. While they may be wounded by the Christians they come into contact with, their own ideas of spirituality are just as invalid, but they use misguided Christians as fodder for their own wrong positions or principles.

A quick note on the American belt system within martial arts. Original martial arts did not have a belt system. Their method was simple: you're either a master or student, depending on relationship. But to sell martial arts to Americans, they came up with something to achieve, different color belts.

We often look at our spirituality the same way. Unfortunately, spiritual maturity isn't something that you can measure so directly by passing tests and getting a medal or some other signal of your advancement. All that does within Christianity is cause people to compare each other and create some sort of hierchy that is natural in an organization but not an organism.

Daniel gets beaten up again, pushed down a hill while on his bike. He yells at his mother when she confronts him about what is going on. His inability to properly deal with conflict has led to a desire to just give up, continuing on the same theme of frustration, anger, bitterness, now even aimed at his own mother. Miyagi is close by, listening.

Miyagi comes to visit Daniel's apartment to fix the sink. Daniel is methodically kicking, learning karate according to a book. Miyagi is interested, "Learn karate from book?" His implication is clear. The idea of learning something like karate by book is unnatural to Miyagi.

You cannot be discipled by a book. You may learn information, but books do not produce character. Y oucannot come to spiritual maturity through intellectual learning. It takes a Christian to show you what being a Christian means.

Daniel finds other children lording what they learn in classes over others. Daniel's own self-reliance by reading a book isn't helping him at all. It just keeps getting worse. Sunday school classes and books are not discipleship. They do not produce mature Christians. Even studying the Bible alone cannot do this.

Before someone stones me, let's explore what the Bible actually shows us.

We'll start with Christ. When He called His disciples, it was simple. Follow me. He didn't give them books to read. Sure, he taught them, but it was always in context of who He was and what He was doing. They spent every waking moment with Him, watching Him, annoying Him, probing Him with questions.

This is what the twelve learned, and this is what they showed the thousands that believed in those first few weeks. They all lived close together, sharing everything, watching each other live. Yes, the twelve taught, but it was followed by healings or other examples of what following the Spirit of God should look like.

Paul tells the Church at one point, "imitate me as I imitate Christ."

We read books, we hear sermons, we sing songs together, and all of these things have their place, but they are fruitless without an example of what it really looks like. Most Christians don't have enough relationship with other Christians, even less a healthy relationship, to see what a good husband, wife, father, mother, daughter, son, sibling or coworker even looks like. The result is we can sing a great praise song but se don't know how to discipline our kids or serve in our marriages. Our solution to this is to tell everyone our lives are private so we can hide our immaturity, and possibly sin, either that or we counsel people to keep listening to more sermons, reading more books, and singing more worship songs; how you can see why we have a Church that collectively acts like its still in the terrible 2's.

But this is the only way Daniel knows to learn, by book or by structured class. It takes Miyagi to teach him a different way.

Sounding Off 1.23.2008 -- The Race

2008-01-23T14:01:00.000-05:00

Wanted to put a couple thoughts together about the presidential election as a whole.

The Republicans have an opportunity to put a new face on the party and focus on their own progressive ideas, which will garner more support from the country than the ideas from the Democrats. The spectre of GW Bush will continue to haunt them in the media, but that can easily be overcome with a focus on ideas and issues. If they become too critical or hard-line, watch the media pounce.

The main uphill battle for the Republicans is eight years with a rather unpopular president and their association with him. Completely rejecting the positives of his presidency will alienate their own party more than they think, and it will hurt them if they overreact, which they might be doing with the rise of John McCain. Remember, Bush was pretty unpopular before the '04 election, too; the American people just decided they liked Kerry even less.

The Democrats have an uphill battle of their own to fight. For the most part, their stances and positions are not popular with the majority during a presidential election. As the party as a whole has swung way liberal, they will have a hard time maintaining a moderate face. Despite Bush's low approval rating, the Democratic Congress' approval rating is even lower, and both front-running candidates are members of that congress. Also, the track record for Congressmen winning a presidential election is poor ... we haven't tried it yet with a Congresswoman, so let's see how it goes.

Another thing to remember, a Democrat/liberal has not truly won a presidential election since 1976, and Jimmy Carter was such a horrible president that he doesn't win any arguments with the American public.

What about Bill Clinton? you may ask. No, I'm not senile. I remember '92 and '96, but also remember there was a third candidate in both races, Ross Poroit. While Clinton won the electoral college, he didn't win either popular votes. No one did. If we were to place Poroit on the conservative side (he was a staunch Republican until Bush, Sr. ed him off), then conservatives won both elections by popular vote. Bill Clinton may have still won those elections. We'll never know.

The point is that independents tend to vote more conservative in presidential elections and liberal in local ones, which partially explains the Democratic takeover of both houses in '06 (only partially ... there was a lot of media-fed backlash of the Republicans as well). This will be an advantage to any Republican candidate and a disadvantage to the Democrats.

This is why Obama would be strong in a general election against most of the Republicans. He's consistently preaching the same message, and the media will endorse that message of working for real change, giving the Democrats an advantage with the independents.

Another thing to remember: elections are not won by those who we WOULD vote for, but the ones we actually do. It matters more who actually takes the time to vote than any public perception or poll, as we saw in the Democratic primary in Nevada.

For both parties to still have no consistent front runner (except for possibly Hillary for the Democrats) is a disadvantage to them both. A party needs time to unify itself after the chaotic mess that the primary system can be. I feel that this will be another close one in the presidential race.

An important thing to keep watch over is who controls the House and Senate. It is completely possible that we could have a Democratic president and a Republican Congress, which would be interesting.

Peace.

Random Thoughts 1.22.2008

2008-01-22T15:09:00.000-05:00

Judging by how many Christians view following the Lord, the Israelites, after passed over them, would have stayed in Egypt.

Perhaps it is not my understanding of the Bible that needs to change. Perhaps it is me.

I don't have to worry about more of God. My job is less of me.

Peace.

Quote of the Week 1.21.2008

2008-01-21T10:20:00.000-05:00

Who else?

Some King quotes for the kids.

... the nonviolent resister does not seek to humiliate or defeat the opponent but to win his friendship and understanding. This was always a cry that we had to set before people that our aim is not to defeat the white community, not to humiliate the white community, but to win the friendship of all of the persons who had perpetrated this system in the past. -- From "The Power of Non-Violence" 1958

... nonviolent resistance is also an internal matter. It not only avoids external violence or external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. And so at the center of our movement stood the philosophy of love. -- "The Power of Non-Violence" 1958

... there are some things within our social order to which I am proud to be maladjusted and to which I call upon you to be maladjusted. -- "The Power of Non-Violence" 1958

I am convinced that for practical as well as moral reasons, nonviolence offers the only road to freedom for my people. -- "Nonviolence: The Only Road to Freedom" 1966

Nonviolence was never more relevant as an effective tactic than today for the North. It may also be the instrument of our national salvation. -- "Showdown for Nonviolence" 1968

We have, through massive nonviolent action, an opportunity to avoid a national disaster and create a new spirit of class and racial harmony. We can write another luminous moral chapter in American history. All of us are on trial in this troubled hour, but time still permits us to meet the future with a clear conscience. -- "Showdown for Nonviolence" 1968

This morning, you can only be on his right hand and his left hand if you serve. It's the only way in.
Every now and then I guess we all think realistically about that day when we will be victimized with what is life's final common denominator -- that something we call death. We all think about it. And every now and then I think about my own death, and I think about my own funeral. And I don't think of it in a morbid sense. Every now and then I ask myself, "What is it that I would want said?" And I leave the word to you this morning.
If any of you are around when I have to meet my day, I don't want a long funeral. And if you get somebody to deliver the eulogy, tell them not to talk too long. Every now and then I wonder what I want them to say. Tell them not to mention that I have a Nobel Peace Prize, that isn't important. Tell them not to mention that I have three or four hundred other awards, that's not important. Tell him not to mention where I went to school.
I'd like somebody to mention that day, that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to give his life serving others. I'd like for somebody to say that day, that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to love somebody. I want you to say that day, that I tried to be right on the war question. I want you to be able to say that day, that I did try to feed the hungry. And I want you to be able to say that day, that I did try, in my life to clothe those who were naked. I want you to say, on that day, that I did try, in my life to visit those who were in prison. I want you to say that I tried to love and serve humanity.
Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice; say that I was a drum major for peace; I was a drum major for righteousness. And all of the other shallow things will not matter. I won't have any money to leave behind. I won't have the fine and luxurious things of life to leave behind. But I just want to leave a committed life behind.
And that's all I want to say ... if I can help somebody as I pass along, if I can cheer somebody with a word or son, if I can show somebody he's traveling wrong, then my living will not be in vain. If I can do my duty as a Christian ought, if I can bring salvation to a world once wrought, if I can spread the message as the master taught, then my living will not be in vain.
Yes, Jesus, I want to be on your right side or your left side, not for any selfish reason. I want to be on your right or your best side, not in terms of some political kingdom or ambition, but I just want to be there in love and in justice and in truth and in commitment to others, so that we can make of this old world a new world.
-- From "The Drum Major Instinct", a sermon in 1968, just two months before his assassination.

Peace.

Honoring Dr. King

2008-01-21T08:57:00.000-05:00

Growing up, I would say that my knowledge of Martin Luther King, Jr. was fairly basic. He had a cool speech, he had a dream, and now African Americans aren't segregated throughout the South.

My history education through high school was fairly white, American, and major event related. Not criticizing it, but once I got into my major at Georgia State in social studies, I purposefully took classes I had little to no prior knowledge of. I learned more detail about other countries and cultures and saw history from their perspective. It was fun.

One of those many classes was African American History. Since the teacher was actually there during many of the major events, she concentrated more on the Civil Rights Movement from the early '50's to the '70's. This was when I first saw the series, Eyes on the Prize, which was produced by PBS but is no longer in circulation because of stupid copyright considerations. Long but incredibly informative and honest, Eyes on the Prize taught me things and ideas I never knew.

If I had heroes, depending on your definition of them, Martin Luther King, Jr. is easily one of them. And this is why I have a problem with Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.

Reading much of what he said, did, and thought, I fully believe that a holiday to the man is valid and important. But we aren't actually honoring him. Let me explain.

First of all, he is touted as a figurehead of all black issues, but many of the things fought for and defended by most of the modern black leadership had little to do with what he stood and ultimately died for then. This division was very pronounced by the mid-60's. Dr. King had become marginalized by many in the Civil Rights Movement. They were unwilling to love their enemies enough to be non-violent, believing instead that minds and hearts couldn't be changed. Dr. King clearly wanted to move towards a type of American brotherhood that crossed racial and even religious lines. The Civil Rights Movement began to split because of these things, and the new, youth oriented groups were more exclusive and willing to resort to violence.

So many are still ignorant of what King actually stood for. Oh, we get the sugar coated "I Have a Dream" concept but ignore the background of his non-violent ideas, his opposition to exclusion of white liberals and Christians who wanted to support the movement, and why he was opposed to the Vietnam War.

Second, because of the ignorance of what he actually stood for, many black leaders manipulate the legend of Dr. King to give validity to their own ideas. Almost to a man, these leaders were highly critical of King during his lifetime and actively opposed him, responsible for the very division I discussed earlier. To now try to unify support throwing by his name around doesn't seem to have too much integrity, especially on issues that he stood against in his own lifetime. It is dishonest and only shows the weakness of their argument to use MLK's name in their propaganda.

I'm not saying that if you disagreed with King at some point you don't get to mention him or discuss his legacy. But it is intellectually dishonest that some people get a "free pass" once they mention his name, primarily current black leaders and white Democrats, many of whom were tied to extremely racist positions in the past.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was a great man who put a mirror to the face of a nation at a time when it was desperately needed. He was strictly pacifist, deeply spiritual, and an amazing writer. He struggled for economic and political equality. He achieved much in his short life to help resolve a divided national conscience. He did not believe his work was done at the end of his life, however, and was even campaigning for worker's rights in Memphis when he was killed.

But we have no clue what he would have stood for beyond that forty or fifty years later. It is unfair to his legacy to even try. Honor him for who he was, honestly, and the revolutionary power he exhibited. That should be enough.

Peace.

Discipleship According to the Karate Kid: 1 -- Intro

2008-01-17T14:27:00.000-05:00

One of my weaknesses continues to be my love of movies. As a result, God is merciful to me and shows me things while I watch. Sometimes it's only a scene or a line that will hit me; every now and then a whole movie will strike me (pun intended?) as symbolic.

This was the case with Mary Poppins. And I explored some amazing symbolism in the series The Church According to Mary Poppins. My mother encouraged me to continue writing along the same lines. At first I shrugged it off, but God led me to a couple more I could explore.

I remember watching the Karate Kid in the theater. Yes, that's how old I am. I was in middle school, and I was so excited about this cool movie that I asked a friend at lunch one day if he had seen it. His response? He clapped his hands and began to furiously rub them together.

Once the connection is made, this series will really write itself. I'll pull in some details or concepts you may or not remember or even think of, but the basics are there. We have a student. We have a master. Discipleship is fairly natural after that.

Another difference between this one and Mary Poppins is that the Karate Kid movies are intentionally symbolic. A type of fantasy movie all its own, themes based in Eastern mysticism were intended to have certain messages, more expressly stated than implied, dumbed down for an American audience. But don't let that fool you. While the themes and messages may be more intentional, there are many key kingdom discipleship principles that are important for us to explore.

Discipleship is the goal of the gospel. Saying the sinner's prayer alone is not making a disciple and therefore not fulfilling the Great Commission. Even repentance alone is not making a disciple. Jesus' command to "go into all the world and make disciples" is largely absent from most attempts at evangelism. Most evangelism centers around converting someone into being an attender, tither, and notch on the organizational bedpost. Discipleship seeks to make an individual part of the family, a community, a relationship where one is taught to love and obey God.

And families need fathers and mothers, older, wiser saints that can help a child grow into being a young man or woman. And we desperately need fathers in the Body of Christ today.

This doesn't mean we need more men than women in leadership positions. We have men in positions, professionals, given authority by organization. These positions actually discourage the very relationship true discipleship requires. What we need are fathers, men of God who, whether they have children or not, take responsibility for those younger or more immature to teach them out of love and experience, patiently, prayerfully, and firmly guiding the whole Body of Christ into maturity.

This takes a paradigm shift of epic proportions that will do more than threaten established traditions of men; it will tear them down or abandon them altogether. But this shift is happening, and must for the Church to be who she must be in the coming generation.

The twelve had Christ. Barnabas had the twelve. Paul had Barnabas. Timothy had Paul. You see how it works? Young men becoming fathers so that children can be come young men and eventually fathers themselves.

So we will begin to explore how Daniel LaRusso, a seeker by definition, a child without a father, finds Mr. Miyagi in the most unlikeliest of places, the janitor shop in his apartment building.

To be continued ...

Random Thoughts 1.16.2008

2008-01-16T15:22:00.000-05:00

God made light first, saw it was good, then separated it from the darkness.

We are to bear fruit; the seed of fruit is within itself; in order for fruit to reproduce, it must fall and die for the seed to be exposed.

Abraham's father could only take him so far.

God is looking for a people who will say, "We would rather die in the wilderness than go back and serve the Egyptians."

Peace.

Quote of the Week 1.15.2008

2008-01-15T13:45:00.000-05:00

Finished a book this week, The Heavenly Man, a semi-autobiography of Brother Yun, a Chinese house church pioneer and amazing disciple of God.

Born to a poor farmer in China, Yun was saved at a young age in 1976 after God miraculously healed his father. Soon after, Brother Yun prayed and fasted for a Bible, which God supernaturally provided. He proceeded to memorize all of Matthew and half of Acts. Yun then began to spread the gospel to surrounding villages, started numerous house churches, and began to suffer greatly under Communist rule. He spent years under , imprisonment and on the run. His wife faithfully stayed by him through all of this. Now they live in Germany and try to give a face to the house church movement in China.

This is a powerful book. Yun is passionate about the Lord and matter of fact about his . He also testifies greatly to the power of God through miracles and the supernatural way that he was led by God. A great strength of the book is his wife's honest recounting of her struggle while her husband was in prison or separated from them for some reason.

Here are some quotes:

We never pray against our government or call down curses on them. Instead, we have learned that God is in control of both our own lives and the government we live under.

We shouldn't pray for a lighter load to carry, but a stronger back to endure!

In the West many Christians have an abundance of material possessions, yet they live in a back slidden state. They have silver and gold, but they don't rise up and walk in Jesus' name. In China we have no possessions to hold us down, so there's nothing preventing us from moving out for the Lord.

You can never really know the scriptures until you're willing to be changed by them.

Multitudes of Church members in the West are satisfied with giving their minimum to God, not their maximum.

I'm often asked about the rights of pastors in China. A pastor has no rights, except the rights of a slave! Everyone in this world is a slave. They're either slaves to sin, or slaves to Christ. Our "rights" are in the hands of Jesus. We must fall on our knees in complete dependence upon him.

The world can do nothing to a Christian who has no fear of man.

Never be satisfied with God's calling or his gifts in your life. Be satisfied with Jesus Christ himself!

There's more ... but I'll leave you with that.

Peace.

Sounding Off 1.14.2008

2008-01-15T10:13:00.000-05:00

Candidate Matchmaker

No, this is not a way to get a date with your favorite candidate. Take this quiz and it will tell you how you match up with each candidate and rank them for you. While it is simplified, it does a great job. My advice would be to take the quiz, then click on the different candidates and see what they stand for. Some issues are more important to different people.

For the record: On a couple questions, I wasn't sure what to pick, so I took the quiz more than once. Consistently up at the top for me were Huckabee, Edwards, and Clinton, and Obama was up there in the top three once. This doesn't surprise me but is indicative of how varied my views have become and how I might not be so much a hard line conservative anymore. But I never got more than 50% match on any candidate. Huckabee was the most with 48%.

How did you do?

Candidate Review

Since Super Tuesday is coming up, and I'm not really sold on anyone, I thought I'd do a little rundown on the candidates and share some thoughts.

Democrat

John Edwards: Has the possibility of looking more moderate but keeps hanging out with uber-liberal groups and vying for their attention. He is young, good-looking, and well-spoken, the possibility of a good candidate, but I don't think he's able to really te in the current race, although he will consistently rank top 3 among the Democrats.

Hillary Clinton: She made some noise coming back in New Hampshire. She and Bill are part of the Democratic "glory days" (more on that next week), so a high percentage of Democrats feel some sort of loyalty to his legacy and associate that with Hillary. Bill Clinton is kinda like the modern Regan for Dems ... only he never accomplished as much as Regan. Bill Clinton's involvment in Hillary's campaign will either push her forward or sink her boat. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Barak Obama: Hopefully we can get past stupid and unfounded rumors about the man's religious beliefs and focus on the issues, which he might seem to appreciate. When I saw him speak at the Dem National Convention in '04, I wondered why the Dems were going with Kerry and not this dude. I had no clue as to his positions at the time but his poise, passion and charisma impressed me. He is a great candidate for the Democrats. He is playing smart and sounding moderate and progressive in his brief speeches, despite the fact that his brief record clearly shows he will bow to the Democratic mainline and isn't willing to work with Republicans on anything.

The Democratic Race: It's really between the two most inexperienced but charismatic figures in the Democratic Party. Hillary represents the legacy of the Democratic Party while Obama is the future. The race between them is getting more and more divisive and , more from Hillary's side than Obama's. Obama has been converting more top Democrats to his side and that should help him in the primaries. He's also going to capture more of the young vote if they'll get out and vote. Don't discount Hillary, though. She knows how to work the system like a master, especially the Democratic Party. It will be close.

Republicans

Rudy Guliani: A heavy favorite and front runner early on, and he should still be a strong candidate, but some of his liberal social postitions have hurt him among strict conservatives. Anyone who could turn around New York like he did should deserve a shot. He's lost his front-running status to others, and that's unfortunate for him.

Mitt Romney: A more mainline conservative, although his stand on abortion is shaky with those on the right. Unfortunately, like Obama and Huckabee, some question him because of perceptions of his religious background, and that has hurt his chances with some conservative Christians.

John McCain: Known as the Democrat of the Republican party, he's basically what Joe Lieberman would be as a Republican. Strong conservative on defense and the "war on " but otherwise moderately liberal. Won in New Hampshire, but more conservative states will go with others like they did 8 years ago.

Mike Huckabee: Again, too much is being made of his religious background. Some are voting for him because of it, and others demonize him for the same. Looking at his stand on issues, he's one of the more moderate conservatives running. His record, while more moderate and not strictly conservative, is colored by his willingness to compromise as a Republican governor for 8 years in a heavily Democratic state, Arkansas. This should be a positive for him since he's a conservative but actually has the record that shows he's worked with Democrats before. He's said some stupid things, but every candidate has said some stupid things they've gotten in trouble about; I feel its just more pronounced because he's an evangelical and there's an unfair perception about them in the media.

Republican Race: Really wide open. The Republicans are attempting something too monumental: to find a true conservative AND distance themselves from George Bush. Another factor somewhat hindering the Republicans finding a front runner is that they allow for a little more ideological diversity than the Democrats, so you have conservative Republicans but each one is independent enough to challenge traditionally held conservative platforms. This means that the Republicans more focus on the issues but will find it harder to get a candidate everyone will get behind. It's anyone's game at this point for the Republicans.

Peace.

Great Podcast

2008-01-12T12:54:00.000-05:00

If you appreciated my series called 20 Things I Can't Find in the Bible, you'll enjoy this book, Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna. Friend Josh Brown has a podcast where he and friend Nick interview Frank Viola.

Listen Here.

Peace.

A Couple Reviews

2008-01-12T11:46:00.000-05:00

Been listening and watching some new stuff lately and wanted to share. Here we go.

Once
This is a great little movie. I saw the movie in WalMart, and it looked interesting. The main character is this street musician in Dublin, Ireland, who writes his own songs. A young woman inspires him to try to make it on his own and record his own songs. The music in this movie is amazing. The main characters wrote and performed all the music. I went out and bought the soundtrack. Both movie and soundtrack are highly recommended.
Short warning for those who care: Movie is rated R because its from Ireland and they love the f-word. Actual topics and storyline is pretty clean, though.

Robert Plant and Alison Krauss

Also a really enjoyable album. A mix of blues and country, the musicianship is great, and both vocalists gave great performances. More moody and laid back than anything, but also highly recommended.

Jonah 33 The Heart of War

The best hard rock album I've heard in a while. I've liked Jonah 33 since their first album, and this is the best one that they've made. I listened to the whole album in one sitting and was blown away. The vocals are better, the songwriting is still strong, and the musicians put together some really interesting stuff.

Check this stuff out if you get the chance.

Peace.

No Fear

2008-01-10T15:04:00.000-05:00

The Bible says clearly that we have not been given a spirit of fear, but of power, love and sound mind. We have other such commands not to be afraid ... many of these coming from the Old Testament ... and Jesus says the least in the Kingdom are greater than John, who was greater than all those. So we have even less reason to be afraid.

I see way too much fear in people who say they follow God. It just doesn't belong there. And many disguise their fear by claiming certain responsibilities over others or using the term "wisdom."

Jesus felt threatened by no man. He taught not to fear anyone who can kill the body, rather "fear Him who can kill the body and send the soul into hell." Pretty sure that was God. Jesus lived this out perfectly. He was not afraid of being seduced by the prostitute, catching a disease from the lepers, languishing in poverty by giving, criticism from His family, His own death by political or religious opposition, nor even His own followers leaving Him.

We have a whole culture that teaches us to feel fear, to feel threatened. Jesus says to love our enemies. We love to tout this scripture when calling for an end to war in Iraq, but then we turn around and see our very neighbors as potential enemies. We lock our doors at night, put security devices on vehicles. Anyone is capable of stealing, murdering, kidnapping, raping, taking advantage of you, and we hear stories in the news of this every day, giving us evidence of the validity of our fear.

When we moved into the neighborhood back in September, I wanted to go around and meet some of our neighbors. A couple that we met were very nice and willing to talk. Eric actually had people slam the door in his face, some who peeked out a window and refused to even acknowledge their presence.

Over Christmas, our house church attempted to go around and sing Christmas carols for people in the d10's neighborhood. Some people turned OFF their lights and cowered while a group of people, including children came to sing and bless others that live only a few yards away.

Of course the internet and email has done nothing to help with this. My vitrolic attitude towards all forwards stems from years of getting the same emails from different sources about how there are people who put things in phone booths or toilet seats or hotel rooms. You could wake up in a tub of ice with your kidneys cut out!

This is on a personal level. But we feel threatened in other ways, too. Liberals are threatened by conservatives, Republicans by Democrats, and all vice versa. We are threatened by differing religious beliefs or practices, other denominations within our religion. We feel constantly attacked by someone or something that will cause us irreparable harm if we don't stop them!

All along the way, we have no peace. How does this peace exist? Well, first, we have to surrender all concerns to God. "Seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all things will be added unto you." In context, Christ was speaking of material things, but I believe we can apply this to any worldly thing we might have concern about. We have to surrender into His hands all things and recognize that the only thing worth fighting for is an eternal Kingdom made up of His repentant people committed to righteousness.

Only then can we be at peace, because we don't build His Kingdom. He does. We just partake in His work as He leads. Then we can be bold or be at rest or whatever He might require. And only then can we truly live like Jesus, who was never threatened, anxious, in a hurry.

Have you ever noticed that Jesus never ran anywhere? Maybe he ran in play as a child. But even when a man comes to beg Him to heal His dying child, Christ simply walked. There was no rushing in Him. He was in complete peace.

This shows our lack of faith. We constantly see missed opportunities and obligation. For Christ, every moment was in itself an opportunity, whether sitting (sitting, not standing or pacing) before thousands or getting water at a well in Samaria with a whore of a woman (scandalous!). It wasn't that everyone was worth His time. He knew that His every moment belonged to God to do whatever His Father required of Him.

So often we see someone and size them up by external means. Jesus never did that. We see someone and judge them by their political affiliation or denominational association or socio-economic status. Christ saw a possible disciple, if God would only call them, no matter who they were. His faith was not in humanity, but in His God to work and call.

We don't trust God to do very much, for whatever reason. But if Jesus had to say, "I can do nothing. I only do what My Father says," our self-reliance looks rather pitiful, and therefore leads to fear and anxiety and paralyzed our ability to act in faith.

I'm not advocating picking a fight with anyone or anything. Part of our problem is that most of us aren't really following God, can't really hear His voice, and so we aren't able to have confidence in His ability to take care of us. He's too distant to be that involved.

But once we have boldness that we are where He has called us, first of all, and act accordingly with no fear, we can boldly move forward without fear when He calls us somewhere else. But if we aren't sure of His voice, how do we know we're really called at all? No wonder there is so much fear.

Peace.

Random Thoughts 1.09.2008

2008-01-09T09:26:00.000-05:00

It takes iron to sharpen iron. Any discipleship that bypasses placing Christians in direct, vulnerable, and intimate relationship with one another only leads to dullness and rust ... if it is even Christianity at all.

Our deist traditions allow us to believe that "God helps those who help themselves." We then take responsibility for our own provision and consider it an important aspect of Christian citizenship. Then we wonder why we don't have the faith to raise the dead ... either that or we treat actual miracles as some sort of mythology ... regardless, we only prove how paralyzed we are spiritually by our unbelief than anything else.

You want more faith? It doesn't happen without prayer and fasting. Most of us aren't concerned with our lack of faith ... we're more concerned with our lack of worldly things.

If we really knew the power of prayer, I believe we would have meetings where the prayer took an hour and the message lasted five minutes.

Peace.

Sounding Off 1.08.2008

2008-01-08T16:37:00.000-05:00

Starting the new year, I feel like I need to focus more what I do with the Sounding Off segment on my blog. We'll see how it goes, but I'll be doing more political discussion over the next few months leading up to the election. Every presidential election is important, on some level at least, and I'll be sharing some thoughts here.

But before I get into all that ...

I wanted to explain my position in general as a Christian and a citizen of a worldly nation. I've come far in my perception about what is important or even necessary as a citizen of the United States of America.

Ultimately, it matters none in the eternal scheme of things who gets elected in November. God is still in control. Was He less sovereign when Bill Clinton was president for eight years? Did He become less sovereign the moment George Bush began his two terms as president? I highly doubt it. I don't necessarily want this to degenerate into a discussion about the limits or responsibility of free will, but the scripture makes it clear that God chooses our leaders, whether we agree with such a choice or not. The fact that we have a process where individuals speak their opinion with the right to vote doesn't change the truth. God still chooses the leaders.

The American system isn't inherently Christian. In fact, the American political structure is inherently non-Christian and humanist and pagan. We become the little gods that deceive ourselves into believing we make these choices.

Knowing history, this should make sense. Abraham Lincoln's election was nothing short of a political miracle. Haven't we, in this country, chosen leaders unwisely and for the wrong reasons or motivations? Choosing by majority does not protect from deception. In fact, this was the very reason we are a Republic and not a Democracy. The founding fathers, the ones that wrote the constitution, wanted to give the citizens a voice but did not trust the voice of the majority. Hence, they chose representatives more able to make important decisions for others. Still humanist, just a challenge to our modern idea of political equality.

Didn't the masses love Hitler? Time magazine made him their man of the year in the '30's. People are still very easily deceived.

It is perhaps this illusion of choice that creates such a strong temptation for Christians to become political activists, something never advocated or discussed in the New Testament whatsoever. In context, many of the early Christians were not citizens of Rome or were slaves, so of course they were disenfranchised from the system and we must take my recent point with a certain grain of salt. But it seems to me much of political activism in this country, even among Christians, is just another way to find enemies when we're supposed to be loving them.

Since God has placed the Body of Christ here, in this country, what then is our responsibility? Well, first of all, following the scriptural mandates, we should dilligently pray for our leaders, which most Christians I know don't do. Our New Covenant "freedom" is touted as a reason many times ... we don't "feel" like it ... but Paul doesn't seem to care what we feel like, the directive is clear. Pray for your leaders. Do you, as a conservative, pray for elected liberal officials? Did you pray for Bill Clinton? Do you, as a liberal, pray for George Bush? It is pretty hypocritical to make any sort of judgment upon such people without praying for them out of a pure heart, blessing them as the leaders God has chosen.

Remember, Paul was encouraging them to pray for even the emperors, people that were guilty of much greed, persecution, and oppression. So while many had not the political ability to make any sort of change, they were still responsible for lifting their political leaders up in prayer. Funny how we, with the political right to vote, place our hope more in the pulling of a lever than kneeling in prayer. I wonder how that isn't pride. And pride is certain to fall.

So it would be irresponsible of me to not first call God's people, regardless of your political persuasion, to prayer. I might even be so bold as to say, if you don't know how to pray for your leaders, forget voting. Your lack of prayer life is way more damaging than anything a president or emperor or dictator could ever do.

That being said, while the United States is a worldly kingdom, God has given worldly kingdoms certain standards and mandates, as well. As God has led me down this path, I find that the mandate upon the US is very different from the mandate upon the Church, the people of God, the Bride of Christ. This is why, while I would have argued against myself vehemently ten or more years ago, I assert a natural separation of Church and state. There is nothing eternal about the state. The Church is being prepared for eternal wedded bliss with Christ. They have different calls.

For instance, the state collects taxes. The Church calls the citizens of heaven to give their all out of voluntary love. The state places people in jail. The Church goes to visit them. The state sets up borders. The Church crosses them. The state raises up an army ready to kill to protect those they love. The Church raises up martyrs prepared to die out of love for their enemies. The state is responsible for justice. The Church leaves justice up to God and shows only mercy.

This does not make the state or the Church wrong. They have different responsibilities to play, and one is separate from the other. When we mix the two we are in serious danger of crucifying Christ all over again.

So, after praying for our leaders, should we vote? I could see how, ideally, someone who agrees with what I've said so far could come to that conclusion. But I'm not threatened by the idea of Christians voting. This may change over the next decade of my life, and probably will, but I feel that as long as I remember the proper place of the government in a temporary world and that my true kingdom is not of this world, I can make a responsible decision and vote. I should also be careful how my involvment in politics conflicts with how I should seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness. Do I truly believe that all will be added to me? Even God's will for government?

So I will sometimes discuss candidates, but I think mostly I'll tackle some issues separate from either candidate and share my thoughts on governmental responsibility as I see it within the framework of its role as a temporary authority. You are all more than welcome to disagree and add to the discussion in the comments section. I hope you'll see some original ideas and analysis. Ultimately, whether you vote or not or even whom you vote for is of little concern to me. I know that God is still in control, He will still take care of His people, and call us to love. While the next president will most assuredly be different, some things never change.

Peace.

Quote of the Week

2008-01-07T14:25:00.000-05:00

Got a good book this Christmas, quotes from Mother Theresa. Being raised a conservative protestant (both terms I'm not particularly fond of), Mother Theresa was never really revered in my little subculture ... she was marginalized more than anything for her Catholicism and New Age or universalist type of statements.

I've appreciated more about her as I read more about her. She really understood some deep (and yet simple) things of God. Of course there are some statements I appreciate more than others. I'll put a couple here for you.

Holiness is not the luxury of a few. It is everyone's duty: yours and mine.

The fact of death should not sadden us. The only thing that should sadden us is to know that we are not saints.

To sometimes experience disgust is something quite natural. The virtue, which at times is of heroic proportions, consists in being able to overcome disgust, for the love of Jesus.
This is the secret we discover in the lives of some saints: the ability to go beyond what is merely natural.
This is what happened to Saint Francis of Assissi. Once, when he ran into a leper who was completely disfigured, he instinctively backed up. Right away he overcame the disgust he felt and kissed the face that was completely disfigured. What was the outcome of this? Francis felt himself filled with tremendous joy. He felt totally in control of himself.
And the leper went on his way praising God.

The saints are all the people who live according to the law God has given us.

Prayer begets faith, faith begets love, and love begets service on behalf of the poor.

My secret is a very simple one: I pray. To pray to Christ is to love Him.

Prayer is not asking. Prayer is putting oneself in the hands of God, at His disposition, and listening to His voice in the depths of our hearts.

"What is a Christian?" someone asked a Hindu man. He responded, "The Christian is someone who gives."

If one gives a little bit of rice to a poor person in India, that person feels satisfied and happy. The poor in Europe do not accept their poverty, and for many it is a source of despair.

Do we share with the poor, just like Jesus shared with us?

A great poverty reigns in a country that allows taking the life of an unborn child -- a child created in God's image, created to live and to love. His or her life is not for destroying but for living, despite the selfishness of those who fear that they lack the means to feed or educate one more child.

If there are poor on the moon, we will go there too.

So much more. I'll share next week.

Peace.

Sometimes I Wish I Were Retarded

2008-01-07T13:30:00.000-05:00

No, seriously.

I have found that the statement, "the poor are rich in faith," applies to more than material possessions alone. The flip side of this is the statement, "it is difficult for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

The closer I get to God and the more I learn of the simplicity of the Kingdom, the more aware I am that my intelligence, whatever it may or may not be, is an impediment and not an advantage.

As a young man, I can honestly say that I was prideful over the fact that I was generally the smartest person in the room at any given moment (most high school teachers included). And given that I was involved in an educational and religious culture that rewarded and valued highly intelligent people, found worth in them, my ego was often stroked.

But in the course of time, God humbled Himself to have mercy on me and teach me some humility. I was taught that what I knew about God and Christianity mattered none at all. The important decision was to know Him.

Does this surprise us? It shouldn't. The scripture says very clearly that "even the demons believe ... and tremble." In other words, no one on this earth could win a contest of anything, intellect and theology included, with a demon. And of course no demon ever pleases God. You do the math ... if you're smart enough.

Faith has little to do with intelligence. Faith refuses to make sense. It is based on purity of heart, absence of anxiety, and mountains of absolute trust.

I have seen, repeatedly, people with Down's Syndrome do the things of faith without a thought, almost angelic in their love for others. They don't give a thought for what they will eat, drink or wear. They are immediately and completely thankful. They will meet whatever need in others they are able to meet, regardless of race, color, creed, sexual orientation or political affiliation ... or whether that person "deserves" it. They love their enemies not because it is politically or religiously noble but because they honestly don't see enemies, only potential friends. They are unimpressed with how I dress or talk or argue or think. Their only measure of me is how I treat them and others.

You know, like children, the true measure of faith. I think I read that somewhere.

Those with mental handicaps often live the character of Christ effortlessly. It all has to make sense to me first. Who is the stronger? Who is the weaker? More importantly, who does God smile at?

And it pisses me off to hear how many parents are encouraged to abort these children based on things like "quality of life." Just goes to show we don't really know what the hell quality of life really is.

I work with a woman, Mary, who teaches Spanish at my school. Recently retired from the public school system, she has three adult children. Her youngest daughter, Alison, is in her early twenties and has Down's syndrome. Mary didn't know of this until her daughter's birth. The doctor strongly suggested that she put Alison in an institution. She may not walk for years, talk even later, he told her. Just put her away.

Mary's response? "I wouldn't do that to a dog."

Mary wept and cried out to God, at God, in anger and grief, as we all would on some level because of the hopeful expectations we have of our children.

Months passed. Alison was the most pleasant child of the three. She always smiled. She rarely cried. Alison walked at a year and was talking by two. Alison became a blessing, crushing to forgetfulness any thought of burden.

Mary teaches the adult Sunday school class at her church for the mentally handicapped. Mary says that when they pray, they never pray for themselves, only for others. And Mary says that it would shock you how often God answers those prayers.

I told Mary about this book I wanted for Christmas. It's a kids book called the Quiltmakers Gift. It's about this old quiltmaker who teaches the king of her land how to give everything away to others. Mary had been looking for this book so she could read it to her daughter's Sunday School class. But she's afraid to do it because once they understand the moral of the story, she suspects they would immediately give away everything they owned.

I, on the other hand, am so intelligent I read a scripture and come up with all the justifications why I don't have to obey simply taught truth by the Son of God. Some people call this theology.

The poor shall inherit the earth, but don't limit that definition to finances alone. What about the poor in spirit? Poor in experience? Poor in social environment? I'm tired of looking at others and comparing them to myself and using the term "ignorant" or "uneducated." It has nothing to do with who will please God in the end.

Poor in intellect? In our seminary-soaked, ivory tower dominated, title touting religious culture, do we believe that the poor in intellect are rich in faith?

God help me. I do.

Peace.

Mooney Report LXXXVI - General Christmas Stuff

2007-12-27T09:43:00.001-05:00

Greetings to all from Atlanta!

This Christmas, I can only say how blessed we feel. Not only do we have a great little girl to love on, but this Christmas we have definitely been reminded of the overwhelming support and love of our family and friends.

Becca finished her ten week German class at Siemens and thoroughly enjoyed it. She is in discussions to do another class or two starting early next year. We'll see how that pans out. It was a great opportunity for Becca to use one of her many gifts, her fluency in German and great teaching ability, and the money sure didn't hurt, either. She also loved teaching adults ... less detentions, I guess.

I still love my job at Faith Academy. Not only are they great people to work with, the company is severely generous, and everyone was super understanding and supportive of Becca and I as Elisha made her way into the world. Faith Academy is very family focused for their staff (and others), so I was told to just take as much time as I needed. Elisha was born the last week of work, and since I had busted my tail to get all my grading done, it was easier for me to just be gone.

Our housemates, Eric and Heather, and my sister, Gina, and her husband, Ben, are all in Pakistan right now. They spent some time in Germany with my other sister, Shane, and her husband, Jason, before making their way to a wedding. Hence, the Mooney family Christmas was a little sparse this year. But everyone will be back in a couple weeks, including Shane and Jason for a week visit, so we will do Christmas again in January.

The Schneider family Christmas, however, was bigger than its ever been, which was a blessing for everyone. The living room could barely hold all the presents! Becca's brother, Matt, and his wife, Kim, drove in from Dallas to spend Christmas with us. And since Becca and I have been in Korea for four years, this is the first Christmas in a while where everyone is together. Kim is also expecting, which everyone is very excited about. Micah loved playing with his uncle Matt and we all loved holding the little baby.

Speaking of Eric and Heather, it has been going extremely well living with them. While they might have a different perspective, we get along pretty well and have enjoyed the fellowship and family atmosphere. There are some changes on the horizon, though. We'll see how a new little one, Elisha, adds to the mix, and the Friday night house church meeting will soon be held here at our house, which will be good but a stretch for our household as well. We all want more community and fellowship, but even that desire can be tested at times of frustration or moodiness, which is natural and important to get beyond to true community.

Personally, I've been concentrating on a couple major creative projects. First of all, I will be self-publishing my book, The Better Way: A Case for Love, at the start of the new year. I haven't aggressively looked into publishing (a few rejection letters are only the beginning, I feel), but feel that some people will be blessed if able to read it. Look for more info on that in a couple months.

Second of all, I've endeavored to record many of the songs that I've written over the last twenty years. A quick count gives me close to 70 songs. Yes, that's right, 70 songs. I've got about 25 acoustic/pop rock type songs, another 25 heavy Christian material, and another 15 praise songs that I would like to get down. The goal here is not to have the most professional version of every song, but a good demo of each to hear the basic form, melody, and hook to eventually sell a few of them. And I just would like to have a recording of what I feel are some great songs. I'll probably find a way to post them all as mp3s somewhere for people to download for free ... or possibly for a donation to a charity or something.

Which also leads me to the next thing, my own personal website. I've enjoyed my time at blogger, here, but over the next couple months (along with publishing the book and recording music), I will be transferring my blog over to another website where I can do more than just blog. Look for that as soon as I get some cool graphics and stuff set up.

House church meetings have been going extremely well. While the changes on Friday night will shake up the group, I feel it will free us up to do more and, more importantly, be more with each other. It will be different, but good, I think, and God is really doing some cool things. Sunday night is even more encouraging. Its growth will lead to some splitting and extension pretty soon, I think. God is moving, and I really just feel like I'm only sitting back and watching it unfold.

As a short testimony, let me share that Becca and I have given more than we ever have this year, to those in need. As God more shares His heart with me in this area, I've tried to be faithful and give as much as I can, if not more. The result has been that God continues to bless us financially. I'm waiting for a time when I feel like I've really given something away, to feel some sort of material loss. It hasn't happened yet. We've been blessed more this year than any other so far, which only means we have to keep giving it away. It's not a formula, only a testimony that it truly is more blessed to give than to receive.

Also coming up is a visit from Kenny and Nicole who have moved back to the states from Korea. What a blessing it will be to see them and little Faith! I am also going to go visit my great aunt Bea in Florida with my dad (this is his aunt, his mother's sister). I am hoping to interview her about my Grandma and her life as a young girl. It might take a few years, but I hope to get enough info and interviews to put together a book about my Grandma's life. Believe me, you'll want to read it.

I love you all. Pray for us as you feel led. As blessed as we are, God has so much ahead of us to do and be, that many times I hardly feel up to the challenge. We need His help more than ever.

Britt, Becca, Micah, and Elisha, missionaries to the world!

Mooney Report LXXXV -- the birth

2007-12-26T13:30:00.000-05:00

Greetings to all from Atlanta, GA,

Well, if you haven't heard by now, Elisha Abigail Mooney was born on December 17th, three hours past her due date.

On the 16th, her due date, a Sunday, Becca started having regular contractions around 1pm. We kept track of them, but they were only 10 minutes apart or so. We were supposed to wait until they were 4-5 minutes apart for an hour before we called to check if we should go to the hospital. I called Nana (my mom) and she came to get Micah after his nap around 4pm. Becca and I did not go to house church, although we really wanted to, and watched a movie waiting for the contractions to get closer together. They didn't get much closer, but they did get more intense. About 7pm they got to about 4 minutes apart. We called an hour later, at 8. They said Becca sounded too comfortable, to just wait another hour or so.

Well, an hour and a half later, we called but had to leave a message again. About 10:30pm, after Eric and Heather had returned from house church, Becca was shaking during the contractions. They called back as I finished packing the car to go to the hospital.

We got to the hospital around 11pm. They admitted us quickly and the nurse was very sweet and got Becca all hooked up to monitor contractions and heart rate. The midwife eventually came in and said they were going to closely monitor the baby because her heart rate was dipping during the contractions from time to time. As the contractions got more intense, Becca was able to lay on her side and we made the room very dark.

The contractions were getting more and more painful, and when the nurse checked Becca around 1:30am, Becca was only at 7cm. Becca cried, "I don't wanna be only 7," and I prayed that God would speed this thing along. Becca's water broke soon after that.

The contractions were again getting more intense and painful, and around 2:30 am Becca looked at me during a contraction and said, "I wanna push!"

I said, "Lemme get someone for that," and went to the nurse's station. The nurse came in and watched as Becca tried a push. Hair was visible, so the nurse called in the midwife and the whole circus act piled in the room. Becca was told to wait for only a minute or so while the other nurses and the midwife got everything set up.

Then Becca started pushing. Elisha crowned with the first push. Becca pushed a couple more times and Elisha was really close to popping out. The midwife was very concerned about Elisha's heart rate, so she did a slight episiotomy (sp?) and Elisha came out on the very next push, perfectly beautiful and healthy, about 2:50am.

They placed Elisha on her mother's chest first thing, and I got to cut the cord this time. Then they took Elisha to get cleaned up and started cleaning up Becca. Elisha was cleaned first, so I got to hold Elisha for a few minutes while they finished up with Becca. After Becca was clean, they let her try and nurse Elisha. Elisha eventually nursed and everyone was happy.

The nurses, while cleaning Elisha up, kept saying, "She's a beautiful baby ... she doesn't even look like a newborn." I said, "they probably say that about all the babies," and the midwife shook her head, saying, "no, they usually just say, 'what an interesting looking baby.'" Elisha was awake and alert for a while after birth.

We were so blessed with the birth. Not only was Elisha very healthy, she was only 8lbs and 1oz (although 21 1/2 inches)! Micah was almost 10, and we were concerned she would be as big (or bigger). The pushing took maybe twenty minutes total compared to two hours with Micah. Becca felt much better afterwards, as well. We also did not have an IV, no drugs except some novocaine while sewing the small episiotomy up, and did everything natural.

I started calling sleepy people around 3:30 and wasn't done calling until about 4:30. Oma, Becca's mom, came over about 4:30 and stayed for a while until she had an errand to do.

We got a couple hours of sleep (me more than Becca because they were constantly checking her and the baby for stuff) and Nana brought Micah over to see his baby sister. He was immediately in love. He wouldn't let even Nana hold her until he got to hold her. He wouldn't stop kissing and hugging her. We sang her songs. It was very cool. Nana then took him out to lunch and we were alone for just a little while until more visitors came.

We had all of our visitors in the hospital that first day. And we loved it. In Korea, no one came to the hospital to see us. They waited until we got home. But it was cool to have everybody over, even though we were dead tired by that evening.

Becca's milk came in that night (which is supposed to be fast), and Elisha took to eating pretty well. No one came to see us on Tuesday morning, and we got to go home by early afternoon. A couple people came by on Tuesday and Wednesday to see little Elisha. She is very cool. She has monkey toes like her brother, and I think they will look fairly similar.

Here are a couple pictures for the faithful ...
God bless you all!

Britt, Becca, Micah, and Elisha!

Some other blogs to keep you busy

2007-12-18T17:21:00.000-05:00

I should keep up with some posting over the next week or so ... but just in case I don't, here's a couple blogs that contain interesting thoughts for you:

Randomness and Other Stuff
Friend of mine from Korea who has a great dry sense of humor and deep spiritual thoughts. Looking forward to reading this one more.

Asking Y
Some of you might already read Adam Walker's blog ... if not, he says some good stuff, too.

The Rest of the Old Story
Friend from Rose Creek Village pulls out some great things to say. His specialty is the early Church and their writings, pre-Romanization. Longer posts, like mine, but I'm always excited to read what he's got to say.

Peace.

Quick Baby Announcement

2007-12-18T16:06:00.000-05:00

Elisha Abigail Mooney was born Monday morning, 3am, December 17, at Eastside Hospital in Snellville, GA. She was 8lbs, 1 oz, 21 1/2 inches long, and had a full head of dark hair. Many came to visit on Monday, and we are home now. Pictures are forthcoming on my blog and elsewhere ... updates soon ...

Peace.

Thoughts on Shared Life: Fasting in Community

2007-12-14T14:06:00.000-05:00

I've fasted recently for two weeks. I've wanted to do a longer fast for some time but feel it is unwise to completely fast while still working. So I borrowed a book from a brother about juice fasting and procured a juicer from an old friend who was not using hers.

My motivation for fasting is both spiritual and physical. Spiritual in the sense that I feel several changes coming on the horizon, and I want God's will done. This includes the birth of my child and growth among the fellowships I am a part of. Fasting goes hand in hand with seeking the eternal will of God. As Andrew Murray says, prayer reaches to heaven, fasting teaches you to let go of this world.

Physically, I've wanted to fast to detox my body, clean it out, so to speak. Pure fasting accomplishes this the best, as your body switches from processing food to deep cleansing of toxins, but juice fasting does this fairly well, too.

I generally fast once a week anyway, but I wanted to get through two weeks with this particular fast. I would have gone longer, but the upcoming baby and holidays didn't feel right to continue the fast. I'll probably do it again in January for a full 30 days or so.

I'm actually getting more nutrients from juice than three meals of solid food could produce. Most of the time, the fresh juice is pretty good, too.

My biggest struggle hasn't been hunger. I've craved the taste of food more than anything, like my mouth is particularly addicted to the taste and feeding that desire. This is where most people mess up what good they could have achieved on their fast: they gorge themselves with food and severely hurt their bodies when coming off a longer fast. A quick admission: I've done okay with this, but the potato skins the other night when I was hungry were a bad idea ...

Living in community means always being around food. Most of the time, food I really enjoy eating.

I struggle with fasting in a community. Breakfast is probably the only meal during the wekk where I am not around people ... although I could be even then. This makes it difficult to strictly adhere to Jesus' command to not let anyone know you're fasting. I don't tell anyone, but they know. In community, you are confronted with food out of love.

I also deeply believe that sharing meals together is a form of worship, a very important one. We don't eat together enough ... even Baptists. So my inability to physically break bread is in some ways grevious to me. Eating is an intimate thing. Despite my presence, not eating separates me from the Body somehow; I can't fully explain it.

It comes to me that Paul deals with this when speaking of in marriage: "Do not deny one another except for times of fasting." Perhaps I give myself too hard of a time, as intimacy will be affected during times of fasting.

I also struggle with my own physical image. Of course I will lose weight, but that is the focus for some people. I have not weighed myself - and will not - but get the question, "how much weight have you lost?" I know people are trying to be encouraging to me, but I am struggling to not focus on that aspect of the fast. My image and weight are not a primary concern ... although losing a little bit of weight is part of the physical healing process.

My final struggle deals with others perceptions of what is going on. When others see me fast, there is a spiritual tension there that I guess is natural, but I still desire to fix it. (I'm probably not supposed to fix it, though) The tension arises from what others feel about seeing my example. They see their own weakness more clearly ("I could never do that") or feel convicted about their own lack of fasting (perhaps they should ... I don't know) or even try to vehemently talk me out of it ("that's dangerous and unhealthy! you have to eat something!"). Of course there are also those with experience with fasting that want to share with me.

So all of this goes on while I try to keep my motivation pure. It is not my motivation to expose or convict or worry or confirm others. The only pure motivation is to fast out of obedience to the Spirit of God and to sacrifice towards seeking first the Kingdom and His righteousness.

Part of me wonders how they fasted in the early church. I suppose they just allowed and encouraged as people felt personally convicted, taking from passages in Romans and elsewhere about the importance and freedom of each ones personal convictions. I could also see the early church fasting as a group, as a body, and seeking God through that, although it is unwise for some people to fast and I would find it uncomfortable to pressure anyone into fasting if not personally convicted to do so.

Anyway, fasting is great, and I find that when done with the right motivation and conviction, God's voice becomes clearer and it enhances your intercession at the right hand of the Father. Maybe in January I'll do some more on fasting.

Peace.

Sounding Off 12.12.07

2007-12-13T10:26:00.000-05:00

A Peaceful Religion

An elementary school teacher from Britain was jailed last week in Sudan for giving a Teddy bear a name ... Muhammad. They considered executing her. Over a teddy bear. She was allowed to go home to England.

A young woman in Saudi Arabia was driving, supposedly against the law or something. So the cultural response of thsoe around her was to pull her out of the car, beat her, and gang her.

Now, Christianity has had its rough moments through the centuries (more correctly those claiming Christianity), but this is pretty bad. Even worse, though, is the response I hear from some.

"She should have known better, in that culture."

You know, they said the same kinda things 60 years ago in Mississippi when the would string up, in the name of Christianity, a young black man for speaking to a white woman, hanging him from a tree.

"He should have known better, in Mississippi."

I understand that different cultures have their own standards for certain things, but have we become so callous towards the sanctity of human life that we blame the victim for violent oppression? God help us.

Creflo Dollar(s)

Creflo refused to give a Congressional investigative committe access to his finances. Congress, seemingly, has questioned the financial practices of some large Christian ministries, especially those associated with prosperity gospel teaching.

First of all, this stinks of a witch hunt and possibly a waste of time. Not that I believe all these ministries to be above reproach. I'm sure Congress will find more than enough to validate their concerns. By "waste of time" I just mean that it seems they would have better things to concentrate on. (the of the unborn? the protection of sovereign borders? reversing a dangerous trend in public education? howabout their own budget mismanagement? you know, speck and beam and all that)

But before we deal with cries of "freedom of religion!" and "separation of church and state!", these ministries actually gave up these rights when they became non-profit organizations. Becoming a non-profit organization puts you under the control and authority of the government. As unwise as it might be, Congress has every right to put their fingers all over whatever they so desire in non-profit organizations. If it goes to court, just watch, Dollar and other ministries will have to cough up whatever records they are asked to produce.

Obscenity at the MOG

The day after Thanksgiving, a man was arrested for displaying things on his van at the Mall of Georgia in Buford. What was it?

A picture of an abortion.

Now, I've seen some fairly things written, displayed, or portrayed on vehicles in public places. I've never called the cops. I wonder if they were arrested anyway. I kinda doubt it.

If a Christian had called about something he considered , we'd dismiss him as one of those judgmental conservative types. I thought it was just a medical procedure? I wonder what would have happened if it had been a picture of open heart surgery. People paid good money to see that Bodies exhibit in Atlanta that I'm sure was even more graphic. And this was free!

Truthfully, some people get very upset when you expose something for what it is.

How about Jesus in a heretical pose? Would that have gotten him arrested? Well, that's art, so progressive the government supports it.

Muhammad the teddy bear? A Muslim might have beat him to a y pulp.

And we'd say, "He should have known better."

Peace.

Quote of the Week 12.13.07

2007-12-13T10:19:00.000-05:00

Reading through Ragamuffin Gospel by Brennan Manning. It's not quite as good as I expected, but I have enjoyed it. Wouldn't put it top 5 or 10 yet, but it has blessed me. Some quotes:

Children are our because they have no claim on heaven. If they are close to God, it is because they are incompetent, not because they are .

The institutional Church has become a wounder of the healers rather than a healer of the wounded.

Never confuse your perception of yourself with the mystery that you really are accepted.

... the experience of absence does not mean the absence of experience.

And Manning loves to quote from others. Some good ones there, too. From Hans Kung:

And though it is true that the Church must always dissociate itself from sin, it can never have any excuse for keeping any sinners at a distance. If the Church remains self-righteously aloof from failures, irreligious and immoral people, it cannot enter justified into God's kingdom.

And from something Jesus told a 24 year old widow, Marjory Kempe, in 1667:

"More pleasing to Me than all your prayers, works, and penances is that you would believe I love you."

Peace.

Intimacy Without Responsibility

2007-12-10T16:58:00.000-05:00

Intimacy is a wonderful thing. It blesses those who partake in it out of love and selflessness. But intimacy is not an end in and of itself.

This greatly challenges our modern sensibilities. We have been taught, even brainwashed, that intimacy is its own reward. While intimacy possesses its own reward, that is not its goal. Its goal is life.

God's design for sex, the ultimate in intimacy, is children. A monogamous sexual relationship is very rewarding. But the very nature of its design is to produce life.

At GA State University, I took a class called Psychology of Sexuality. I wasn't really a psych major anymore, but it fit a requirement and, hey, I was a young rather worldly man, so it sounded very interesting.

Early on in the class, one of the first sessions, the professor detailed all the different body parts and their biological function, structure, and purpose during sex between a man and a woman. While my motivation for being in the class might not have been completely pure, I sat in awe at the logical conclusion. The professor said the very words on my mind. "As you can see, the entire act is engineered for impregnation. It is not a miracle that people get pregnant. It is a miracle when they do not."

Of course, we understand this on some level. Despite our strong feeling that sex is healthy and needful on its own, sans children, we have to do some fairly unnatural things to prove it, called birth control. We artificially stop God's design to prove what we say God's design is.

Why do we do this? Well, from my own experience as well as from discussing it with many young married couples, there is the same excuse: "We're not ready." It sounds humble enough, but it reality is selfish. The problem is that having a child would be a burden of some sort, a great inconvenience. A child would derail a career or personal goal. It would take too much sacrifice. It would, to some degree, require us to step out of our adult adolescence and become responsible and focused on someone other than ourselves.

Let me dispel a couple myths. First of all, despite how educated and mature you might ultimately be before you have a child, you're never ready. No matter how much you want it, you're never ready. Having a child demands changes upon you in a very humbling fashion quite fast. And no one can explain these well enough ... which is why it is so good for you.

Secondly, life is always messy and inconvenient. If you're waiting for life to be convenient, you'll never have a child ... or do much else with your life, for that matter.

So, we get married and decide not to have children. What we are really saying is: we want the intimacy without the responsibility that naturally accompanies it. To be more blunt, we want the great fun of sex without the sacrifice of new life.

God challenged me with this one day while I ate an orange at work. I was getting frustrated that I had to deal with the seeds. I became thankful for seedless oranges. I'm no botanist, but my understanding about oranges is that to be seedless is fairly synthetic. Without seeds there would be no more oranges. The very perpetuation of oranges frustrated me while I attempted to enjoy one. It is lunacy.

This is inherently selfish, and most Christians are okay with that. Where am I going with all this? Well, this is not an argument against birth control. This is ultimately meant to be a challenge to the Church.

I wonder how this very worldly attitude has influenced the Church?

Many seek the intimacy of the Church without the responsibility. This is why we long for fellowship but fail to truly commit to it. Everything else is allowed to get in the way of the most important of Christ's commands: love one another as I have loved you. Our careers, personal interests, vacation time, hobbies, and other cares of this life take precedence over fellowship with the saints and choke out life. We will go to work sick to save our vaca time or to ensure we make more money to provide the living God already promised us, but we skip fellowship with the saints for really any reason. We'll fellowship "if we don't have anything better to do."

This worldly attitude affects our meetings themselves. They become media or activity driven, reducing the actual need for what produces love: time, trust, and great vulnerability.

The result? No life. This means growth within the fellowship as well as new disciples. And guess what, they go hand in hand. Many Christians hit a plateau in their walk because they (or their fellowship) has neglected a very basic idea: make more disciples.

Just as God's command in the Garden was to "bear fruit and multiply and fill the earth," in the New Covenant it is a spiritual multiplication. New life in the Body necessitates greater maturity in those already present. We lack fathers in the Body of Christ today. I believe one of the many reasons is because we're not seeking to make children.

Growth in numbers requires growth in Spirit, and that requires greater sacrifice, discipline and commitment. So we're kinda okay with the plateau; just as many couples have satisfied themselves with a life without children.

Peace.